What about the DNA evidence?

[46AND2]

I'm not on both sides of the fence; they're two different fences.

Well stated.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not on both sides of the fence; they're two different fences.

OK they are two different fences. But like Dizredux has said there are many ways people believe to what extent evolution is involved in life. A fairly common belief is a theistic view between evolution and a belief in God. This accommodates both sides of the debate. I personally think that for most who believe this form of belief it is a convenient way to allow both to fit in because of a lack of understanding rather than any thought about what it actually means. For example how does Adam fit in. As the bible does a chronological trace from Jesus back to Adam showing the line of decent that god had chosen to bring Jesus. Does theistic belief make Adam a decedent of an ape or do they fit him in some other way. If he is an ape what does that mean to the line of Jesus. Is the bible wrong with their chronology or is there another special creation for Adam to fit in or is Adam a symbolic person that links the line of Jesus. This seems to make a lot of the bible symbolic which contradict some of the verses that seem to be making a statement rather than alluring to some story.

I think there is a form of evolution that allows creatures to change and adapt to their environment but that is only within a species. There maybe cross species gene transfer as well which can account for more variation and epigenetics plays its part in influencing things by how they live and the effects it can have on genes being passed down. But I'm not sure about a bacteria of some sort evolving into life and then coming out of a primaeval ocean and changing into other life forms. I am not a intelligent design advocate either as i think that is to rigid and brings up other problems. I am probably more undecided about a lot of what the details are and the best answer could be i dont know all the details at the moment. But as they say belief in god is based on a faith so that is not dependent on the details of evidence. My conviction comes from a personal relationship with God through Jesus and this testifies to me That God is the Great designer of everything.

But when someone says that they are for a particular version of evolution and God i just think that even though it tries to accommodate both aspects it also brings up as many other difficult questions and in some ways contradicts the bible.

 

[stevevw]

Actually it is FAR more common than your position. First of all, worldwide, you are among the minority JUST IN CHRISTIANITY. When you add Jewish, Catholic, Mormons, and many other religions, you are a small minority along with SOME Islamic people.

As i said these surveys are open to interpretation. Some are of the particular leaders point of view and not the individuals within that religion. Their view changes often and they are not really specific. They sometimes contradict themselves and im not sure they even know what their position is. Also belief in God is also diminishing or at least in the christian sense and many other beliefs accommodate a lot of other things besides evolution so they are all accommodating. I do think a lot more people believe that there is a form of evolution but many do not fully understand what that means. They just believe in science and there is a form of trust and belief in what the experts say without knowing all the facts. If you look at what they are actually saying as to what they believe its not so black and white. You have given the impression that many believe in the form of evolution that you and other evolutionist believe which is based on the Darwinist version. They dont necessarily believe that if you have a good look at what they are saying.

Nothing has changed in the minds of scientists concerning the importance of the Archaeopteryx find. It IS still near the base of the bird/dino transition. It absolutely has bird AND dino features.

Well according to what i have read on the good science sites it has. Archaeopteryx is no longer at the base of the bird to Dino transition. It is now seen as a dinosaur with feathers just as the many others they have found.

I think one of the things that you are struggling with is believing that transitional fossils must be in a sequential, ancestral order. But we can't determine, for certain, whether one species was an ancestor of another from that long ago. We never have claimed to. In fact, it is argued by some that a large percentage of fossils found represent an extinct branch. But that doesn't mean they aren't transitional. Transitional does not equal ancestral.

Yes they have claimed this. They have used Archaeopteryx as the great transitional in their literature and many on this site and other forums still use it as a definite example and proof. The problem is despite looking for over 100 years there is very little evidence of transitional fossils. Despite you saying that it is hard and a long time ago they have found many fossils from all periods and none seem to have any transitionals. They are all complete creatures with fully functioning parts. They may have another aspect of some other creature but it is fully formed and functional feature.

So i think the evidence is shaky but evolutionists carry on like its overwhelming and would not have any such mention of it being in doubt or questionable to interpretation. The problem they see it one way and others see it another and there is no definite evidence to say which way it is at the moment. They have turned what maybe variation within a species into new species based on the fossils records which as you said is hard as it is patchy and inconclusive. Yet they will use this as evidence for evolution in their literature and in schools.

I am talking about stages with a particular creature that shows it growing wings or legs and then completely becoming another different type of creature. There are many gaps and the genetics are creating more gaps in the tree that Darwinists have made. There are creatures being put into the lines that they have linked animals together with which are completely different looking and should not belong according to the similarities that should be shown that links creature the way Darwinists say.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes they have claimed this. They have used Archaeopteryx as the great transitional in their literature and many on this site and other forums still use it as a definite example and proof. The problem is despite looking for over 100 years there is very little evidence of transitional fossils. Despite you saying that it is hard and a long time ago they have found many fossils from all periods and none seem to have any transitionals. They are all complete creatures with fully functioning parts. They may have another aspect of some other creature but it is fully formed and functional feature.

There are creatures with multi functional limbs all over the place. Beavers can swim with their paddle tails and webbed feet, but still good at walking. Seals can swim really well, but while they can still move around on land they are a little awkward. Whales are excellent swimmers but can't walk at all.

Evolution doesn't predict non functioning organs... every step has to be useful, or at least not harmful.

You have yet to explain what you think a transitional should look like. Archaeopteryx has a mix of traits we associate with birds and dinosaurs. It's not the ancestor of birds, as we've found older bird type things, but it is still clearly a transitional creature.

So i think the evidence is shaky but evolutionists carry on like its overwhelming and would not have any such mention of it being in doubt or questionable to interpretation. The problem they see it one way and others see it another and there is no definite evidence to say which way it is at the moment. They have turned what maybe variation within a species into new species based on the fossils records which as you said is hard as it is patchy and inconclusive. Yet they will use this as evidence for evolution in their literature and in schools.

Arvhaeopteryx has teeth and a lizard tail and Velocaraptor had feathers! If you want to just wave that away as "variation" then it's impossible to tell a dinosaur from a bird... which is exactly what we expect if they split from one group.

Here's another example a little more close to home:

Is it just a coincidence that there isn't really any difference between a "human" and an "ape" if you add in all the extinct branches?

I am talking about stages with a particular creature that shows it growing wings or legs and then completely becoming another different type of creature. There are many gaps and the genetics are creating more gaps in the tree that Darwinists have made. There are creatures being put into the lines that they have linked animals together with which are completely different looking and should not belong according to the similarities that should be shown that links creature the way Darwinists say.

We don't predict that!

Please, show us these gaps!

(Also, Darwinist is a silly term... should we start using Ulsterite for you guys?).

 

[stevevw]

Steve (I'm Bret by the way), this is nothing personal, but I've seen this quite frequently in the 20 years I've been debating Crevo, and I have to ask - whatever gave you the impression that others were unfamiliar with platypus physiology and that you needed to list it in detail as if we'd never heard of these beings before?

Hi Brett pleased to meet you. Im not really trying to describe the features of a platypus to educate anyone as i wouldn't know all the detail's about it. I am listing some that i have learnt about of sites that tell me what it is like. I am using these as an example to explain that the platypus has a mosaic array of features. I'm doing this to show how perhaps some can mistake these as a transitional between species when they could be unusual variations of a particular species. Like someone said the ducks bill is not the same as a ducks. But if this was seen in the fossil records it can be interpreted as a link or transition between species because it looks similar. The only reason we know that it is different is because we can do tests. From the site that i read it said the venom of the platypus had some similar qualities to snake venom. What is the ancestor of the platypus to have so many different unusual features if evolution is the passing down of advantageous mutations that give a feature that is beneficial and remains viable.

I guess the other reason is even though you have debated this for many years, i haven't. Nor have i studied the sciences. So i maybe over simplifying it but that happens in all walks of life. You can't assume that everyone is the same and see thing the same way.

As far as your list of attributes go, there are some problems.
- Electroreceptors or any other "supersense" are not unique to the platypus. It is found in a number of fish including the paddlefish and it is found in the other extant Monotreme family Echidnas. It's also been discovered in one species of dolphin.
Guiana Dolphins Can Use Electric Signals to Locate Prey | Science/AAAS | News

So its a common trait that several species have. As some of these are not related are you saying that it is a common mutation that these species have adapted for survival on their own or they held onto them while others lost theirs.

- Monotremes do not lay eggs like birds. They lay eggs that are leathery and reptilian. It does have a uterus, but that's not where the young develop into full blown fetuses, that's where the egg finishes its formation.
Monotreme Reproductive Physiology and Behavior

When the egg leaves the ovary, it is 10 times smaller than a hen’s egg at this stage, but 25 times the size of a placental egg. At this point the egg contains a yolk enclosed by two primary membranes, along with the embryo. Secondary membranes arise from the ovarian follicle cells and tertiary membranes are added in the oviduct and uterus. The majority of the nutrients in the egg come from the oviduct. The egg continues to grow in size in the uterus due to a unique eggshell which allows for expansion. The final shell layer is added once the egg has reached about 15 x 17mm in size. The egg spends about 28 days in the uterus, and only 10 days in external incubation (Dawson, 1983). In contrast, a chicken egg spends about 1 day in the tract and 21 days in external incubation (Brant, 2003).​

Here's the irony of your assertion though - chickens have uteruses that function pretty similarly to that of the platypus.
Poultry

•UTERUS - also referred to as the "shell gland", this is where the egg shell is formed. Most of the transit time from ovulation until the egg is laid is spent in the uterus.​

But wait! There's more. The details of Monotreme anatomy and the reproductive process means that both the term uterus and oviduct can be used interchangeably.
Uterus

Most animals that lay eggs, such as birds and reptiles, have an oviduct instead of a uterus. In monotremes, mammals which lay eggs and include the platypus, either the term uterus or oviduct is used to describe the same organ, but the egg does not develop a placenta within the mother and thus does not receive further nourishment after formation and fertilization.

Ok that was a very good and detailed explanation of the platypus and reproduction systems. It seems the platypus has some aspects of different species yet it is uniquely different. Thats what i mean by its mosaic array of features. But once again if it is similar in some ways yet different in others then isn't that showing that a creature has the capabilities of producing all those features within its genetics. Otherwise where did they come from.

- You do realize that "mammal" comes from "mammary glands", right?
- The webbing of platypus feet is not like a duck. In ducks it's more akin to a piece of rubber stretched over a framework. In the platypus it's more akin to a flaccid balloon. And there are other mammals with similar webbed feet such as otters and some breeds of dogs.
- Your mention of claws is ironic because stripped of skin, the feet of the platypus looks like that of a reptile.
- The venom is not similar to a snake.
Platypus venom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These i still see as similarities but they are fully developed and functioning features that they all have. If the feet are truly like reptiles then you are saying it has kept a feature of the reptile. But then at the same time you are saying its a mammal. Yet it also has similar features or partway at least to chickens (birds). It lays eggs and though it is different to chickens the process seems to be a bit of both. So its either they kept carry overs from all these or developed these similarities on its own or they just happen to be made that way which shows that species are capable of this within their genetics.I just think evolutionist latch onto a similar feature that a creature may have and say see heres the link because you can see that its predecessor had it as well. Yet then it also has a lot of other features that its same predecessor didn't have as well. It also may have similar features to another creature that wasn't its direct ancestor or came from a completely different animal.

Unlike snake venom, there appears to be no necrotic component in the Platypus' venom...​

Everything you have claimed about the platypus is a misunderstanding or wrong.

Well that misunderstanding comes from good sites that have also got it wrong.

 

[stevevw]

There are creatures with multi functional limbs all over the place. Beavers can swim with their paddle tails and webbed feet, but still good at walking. Seals can swim really well, but while they can still move around on land they are a little awkward. Whales are excellent swimmers but can't walk at all.

Evolution doesn't predict non functioning organs... every step has to be useful, or at least not harmful.

These creatures are able to function and they have fully formed features. the seals flippers are not feet they are adapted to go in water where it feeds. Yet because it breathers air it will stay on land. The beaver is the same except it feeds on plants in and out of the water. They boot have similar features and different features as well to adapt to water.

You have yet to explain what you think a transitional should look like. Archaeopteryx has a mix of traits we associate with birds and dinosaurs. It's not the ancestor of birds, as we've found older bird type things, but it is still clearly a transitional creature.

That where i reckon they start to jump to conclusions. They focus on the fully developed wings as the transitional link even though it has many more features that puts it in the dino group. Now the feature they use the wings is very advanced for a feature, almost to the point to say it is just about there when it comes to wings. They sure look like wings anyway. But all the other features are so dino like. Its like it decided to pop one feature of a bird out fully developed and no others. I would have though the amount of transformations to make a bird dino into a bird would be many internally including the organs and brain and externally. So i would imagine that these features would develop across the board several at the same time not one at a time. It points more towards a dino that happens to have feathers and wings as a variety within its genetics that one creature turning into another.

The beaver and the platypus have similar features such as paddle tail and webbed rear feet for going in the water. Now evolutionist will say that these are the transitions for the creature to eventually become a aquatic animal or this is what is needed to adapt to the amount of time they spend in water. They both seem to have developed similar features though not related. Yet other creatures will develop different features again to adapt to water like the seal. Then you have the Pakicetus whose adaptations are said to be different again. I would have thought that they would have been similar to the platypus and have a flatter like tail to help it through the water better like the beaver.

To me it just seems that each of these animals may have many individual features that are complex and specifically needed for their environment. Along with other features which seem to know exactly what they need to ward off predators such as camouflage they just seem to well designed to be a product of random and chance mutations. There would have to be 100s if not thousands of adaptations needed to change from land to sea or visa versa. Not just in the shape of the creature but in their anatomy as well such as their brains, organs metabolisms. So many beneficial mutation would be needed. To many for my liking so to me it points to the creatures having been especially made for their particular roles in life but have varied a lot over time. Their basic makeup was already there which means they didn't have to have these great metaphorical changes but the basic DNA was there to help them be adapted to their environments.

Arvhaeopteryx has teeth and a lizard tail and Velocaraptor had feathers! If you want to just wave that away as "variation" then it's impossible to tell a dinosaur from a bird... which is exactly what we expect if they split from one group.

Why cant it be variation. Just because it has a couple or even more doesn't mean it came from that creature or is turning into that creature. There would be about what 20, 40 a 100 features that would be needed to do the complete turn around. Thats internally with their whole systems of nerve placement, bone structures arteries, organ placements and shapes, brain capabilities that have to change to the different signals needed, vision differences. There maybe more than a 100, some say thousands. So where are they, where are the other transitionals that have all these other changes that are needed. We have one or two creatures that are used that are up for interpretation as to what they are. Id say its more likely they are dinos that have feathers and wings which is totally possible within their genetics.

Here's another example a little more close to home:

Is it just a coincidence that there isn't really any difference between a "human" and an "ape" if you add in all the extinct branches?

Ive seen this one before and this is another example of what i am talking about evolutionist using pictures and literature that has not been proven. They have found skulls together at Georgia that will take out just about half those skull shapes as belonging to the one species, homo erectus. But still evolutionists like to use it as an impressive tool for proving their case. There is also a lot of interpretation and some of the discoveries have come under doubt as being apes and not transitions. All this is is great variation among apes and humans. But what they do is turn a variation into a new species to fill the gaps to make the links.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25559172

We don't predict that!

Please, show us these gaps!

Two prominent "origin-of-life" researchers have laid out their vision of how life arose from chemicals:

1. Start with a molecule capable of copying itself. "The first protocells contained RNA (or something similar to it) and little else".
2. A fatty acid bubble forms around the self-copying molecule, which then makes a copy of itself with nucleotides that filter through the bubble. "Molecules as large as nucleotides can in fact easily slip across membranes as long as both nucleotides and membranes are simpler, more 'primitive' versions of their modern counterparts."
3. The double-strand RNA separates into single strands if it is heated just right. That might happen in an icy pond next to a volcano, where the bubble could circulate between the ice and the hot rocks. "The sudden heating would cause a double helix to separate into single strands. Once back in the cool region, new double strands, copies of the original, could form". At the same time, the bubble is picking up fatty acid molecules and growing. Adding fatty acids makes the membrane grow longer, and a little shaking breaks the bubble into some smaller bubbles, each with some of the self-copying molecules inside, so you have "cell division".
4. "At some point some of the RNA sequences mutated, becoming ribozymes". The "ribozymes (folded RNA molecules analogous to protein-based enzymes) arise and take on such jobs as speeding up reproduction and strengthening the protocell's membrane. Consequently, protocells begin to reproduce on their own." "Other ribozymes catalyze metabolism -- chains of chemical reactions that enable protocells to tap into nutrients from the environment."
5. "Next, the organisms might have added protein-making to their bag of chemical tricks." "Complex systems of RNA catalysts begin to translate strings of RNA letters (genes) into chains of amino acids (proteins)." "Proteins take on a wide range of tasks within the cell."
6. "Protein-based catalysts, or enzymes, gradually replace most ribozymes." "Proteins would have then taken over RNA's role in assisting genetic copying and metabolism."
7. Later, the organisms would have 'learned' to make DNA". "Thanks to its superior stability, DNA takes on the role of primary genetic molecule. RNA's main role is now to act as a bridge between DNA and proteins."
8. "Organisms resembling modern bacteria adapt to living virtually everywhere on earth and rule unopposed for billions of years, until some of them begin to evolve into more complex organisms." --Ricardo, Alonso, Jack W. Szostak. September 2009. Life on Earth. Scientific American, pp. 54-61.
They are currently working on steps 1 and 2 in the laboratory.
So how is the research going?
An interview with Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said, "We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA." "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."

The Fossil Record
Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution

(Also, Darwinist is a silly term... should we start using Ulsterite for you guys?).

Ive started to use this as other versions of evolution have come up in discussions with dont follow the traditional Darwin theory.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are creatures with multi functional limbs all over the place. Beavers can swim with their paddle tails and webbed feet, but still good at walking. Seals can swim really well, but while they can still move around on land they are a little awkward. Whales are excellent swimmers but can't walk at all.

Evolution doesn't predict non functioning organs... every step has to be useful, or at least not harmful.

You have yet to explain what you think a transitional should look like. Archaeopteryx has a mix of traits we associate with birds and dinosaurs. It's not the ancestor of birds, as we've found older bird type things, but it is still clearly a transitional creature.



Arvhaeopteryx has teeth and a lizard tail and Velocaraptor had feathers! If you want to just wave that away as "variation" then it's impossible to tell a dinosaur from a bird... which is exactly what we expect if they split from one group.

Here's another example a little more close to home:

Is it just a coincidence that there isn't really any difference between a "human" and an "ape" if you add in all the extinct branches?



We don't predict that!

Please, show us these gaps!

(Also, Darwinist is a silly term... should we start using Ulsterite for you guys?).

in that picture the top rows are ape like, and the bottom rows are human like. There is no link, they are even separated by a huge white line.

 

[Split Rock]

in that picture the top rows are ape like, and the bottom rows are human like. There is no link, they are even separated by a huge white line.

You really see a big difference between say "G" and "I"? Really?

 

[Black Akuma]

in that picture the top rows are ape like, and the bottom rows are human like.

Explain.

What are the differences between G and H?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have yet to explain what you think a transitional should look like. Archaeopteryx has a mix of traits we associate with birds and dinosaurs. It's not the ancestor of birds, as we've found older bird type things, but it is still clearly a transitional creature.



Arvhaeopteryx has teeth and a lizard tail and Velocaraptor had feathers! If you want to just wave that away as "variation" then it's impossible to tell a dinosaur from a bird... which is exactly what we expect if they split from one group.

It's not a transitional anything. Just as evolutionists once claimed Coelacanth was a transitional between fish and tetrapods, until of course they were discovered to still exist and their DNA was sequenced. It's only too bad we cant sequence Archeopteryx DNA, so we could put that theory to rest as well finally. It is it's own species, plain and simple, just as every dinosaur is its own species. From the first to the last in the fossil record they are all the same, in stasis with only slight variations amongst them.

The problem is evolutionists feel the need to connect them in their own minds, when no such connection is evident. DNA testing of modern animals has shown no upward branching of a tree, but individual sideways branching of what they call trees and bushes, i.e. variation amongst kind.

Besides which, the dinosaurs went extinct according to geologists 65 Million years ago, so dinosaurs evolving into modern birds is impossible, since they all died off. Birds already existed, as did every other mammal.

Limits of variation in mutation research has shown that only a limited number of mutations are possible, once this limit is reached mutations always produce copies of what already existed, and never anything new.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

But fake it till you get enough people to believe.

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not a transitional anything. Just as evolutionists once claimed Coelacanth was a transitional between fish and tetrapods, until of course they were discovered to still exist and their DNA was sequenced.

When will you learn that transitional does not mean ancestral?

A platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals even though no living placental mammal is the descendant of a platypus. Transitional simply means having a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. That's it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When will you learn that transitional does not mean ancestral?

A platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals even though no living placental mammal is the descendant of a platypus. Transitional simply means having a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. That's it.

Which implies since they are divergent that they had a common ancestor, which is not true. You are mistaking similarities as implying common decent, when there is no basis in this assumption.

Don't try to play the word game with me, you require divergence in your theory of evolution.

Divergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You even use the fake Finches in your explanation of divergence evolution, facts we know to be incorrect.

See page 6

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

You use the same circular reasoning to explain homology:

"Without a mechanism, modern Darwinists have simply defined homology to mean similarity due to common ancestry. According to Ernst Mayr, one of the principal architects of modern neo-Darwinism: “After 1859 there has been only one definition of homologous that makes biological sense: Attributes of two organisms are homologous when they are derived from an equivalent characteristic of the common ancestor.”

This is a classic case of circular reasoning. Darwin saw evolution as a theory, and homology as its evidence. Darwin’s followers assume evolution is independently established, and homology is its result. But you can’t then use homology as evidence for evolution except by reasoning in a circle: Similarity due to common ancestry demonstrates common ancestry. Philosophers of biology have been criticizing this approach for decades. As Ronald Brady wrote in 1985: “By making our explanation into the definition of the condition to be explained, we express not scientific hypothesis but belief. We are so convinced that our explanation is true that we no longer see any need to distinguish it from the situation we were trying to explain. Dogmatic endeavors of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science.”"

Don't try to play the circular reasoning name game, won't fly here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which implies since they are divergent that they had a common ancestor, which is not true.

That is false. It is the nested hierarchy that evidences common ancestry. If we found a bird to mammal transitional fossil or living transitional species then this would falsify common descent.

You are mistaking similarities as implying common decent, when there is no basis in this assumption.

I am not implying that similarities imply common descent. I am implying that a nested hierarchy implies common descent.

You even use the fake Finches in your explanation of divergence evolution, facts we know to be incorrect.

When the evidence is stacked against you, the only recourse you have is try to discredit the evidence. Quite sad.

Don't try to play the circular reasoning name game, won't fly here.
[/FONT]

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I am not saying that homology implies common descent. I will say it again so that it has a better chance of sinking in.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT HOMOLOGY IMPLIES COMMON DESCENT.

I would appreciate it if you would stop claiming that this is my position.

 

[Shemjaza]

You really see a big difference between say "G" and "I"? Really?

in that picture the top rows are ape like, and the bottom rows are human like. There is no link, they are even separated by a huge white line.

To help Split Rock's point, here's one I prepared earlier:

So... am I cheating by removing the white line?

 

[USincognito]

Well that misunderstanding comes from good sites that have also got it wrong.

Which good sites?

 

[USincognito]

Besides which, the dinosaurs went extinct according to geologists 65 Million years ago, so dinosaurs evolving into modern birds is impossible, since they all died off.

Birds already existed, as did every other mammal.

 

[USincognito]

A platypus is transitional between reptiles and placental mammals even though no living placental mammal is the descendant of a platypus. Transitional simply means having a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. That's it.

Personally, I think it would be more accurate to say they are representative of a reptile/mammal transitional.

 

[stevevw]

Which good sites?

One of them is Archaeopteryx: Facts about the Transitional Fossil | LiveScience

Another is Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch as first bird - life - 27 July 2011 - New Scientist

Both are more or less saying the same thing.

 

[USincognito]

One of them is Archaeopteryx: Facts about the Transitional Fossil | LiveScience

Another is Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch as first bird - life - 27 July 2011 - New Scientist

Both are more or less saying the same thing.

My post was exclusively about the platypus, so I have no idea what the archaeopteryx has to do with anything.

 

[stevevw]

My post was exclusively about the platypus, so I have no idea what the archaeopteryx has to do with anything.

Oh sorry i didn't scroll back and thought it was about the archaeopteryx which was discussed just before that.

The platypus one of the very unusual creatures we have here in Australia along with the echidnas and kangaroos. They have an array of features and genetics shared with other creatures. The early sage of the reproductive development is similar to birds. Their genetics are in part similar to birds. They have unusual sex chromosomes in which they have 10 and partly shared with birds. They also have a yolky egg and the egg-related gene characteristics are shared with birds, amphibians and fish, while still others are only shared with birds and fish.

Yet they are classed mammals and nurse their young on milk produced by mammary glands. It has spurs on their hind legs that are loaded with a venom potent enough to kill a dog and debilitate a human for days. Tests done show it has a similar protein for making the venom as snakes do. When they analyzed the genetic sequences responsible for venom production in the male platypus, they found it arose from duplications in a group of genes that evolved from ancestral reptile genomes.This means that animals from two distantly related groups could have this in common.
It also has electroreceptors similar to other aquatic creatures for finding food and its way around the murky bottom of the rivers.

So it has a mosaic arrangement of features and genetics and who know where it come from. I just think it is what it is a specially made creature that happens to have some similarities with many other creatures.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/50135/8-facts-revealed-genetic-analysis-platypus
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507131453.htm
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2008-05-08-platypus-genetic-map_N.htm