According to my teacher, the Duck Billed Platypus is the reason evolution isn't right.
It is supposed to be a mammal,
it lays eggs,
These two things are simply not possible together. How can a mammal lay eggs? All mammals have wombs and breasts, not eggs!
Why won't evolutionary scientists answer this question? Are they afraid to say they are wrong? The Platypus destroys their theory.
2 Answers | Add Yours
First of all, your teacher shouldn't attempt to disprove evolution just as a science teacher shouldn't try to disprove the existence of God. I think either set of arguments, each completely accepted as truth by their proponents, lead to circular arguments. You can't find the end of a circle. An evolutionist can point to 50 other star systems in the midst of forming their planets and conclusively say "the Genesis creation story is false." A creationist can point to the big bang and tell the evolutionist, "that's the end of your game, now what?" Is it reasonable to believe that one should not try to prove the Biblical account of creation? Yes. It is equally reasonable that one should not set out to disprove God. Each train of thought requires a certain kind of faith to continue to hold and believe because you will not find a conclusive answer. Evolutionists look for their evidence with their senses. Religious people look within themselves for answers. I think a person can be a rational human doing either. Irrational people have also used these beliefs to do harm. However, I don't think that the educational system should teach that either theory is absolute truth; they are theories no matter how vehemently their proponents believe them.
If your teacher is saying that Duck Billed Platypus is classified as mammal although it lays eggs- that is, it displays many characteristics of mammals as well as some that are not typical of mammals - but "These two things are simply not possible together", then your teacher is making contradictory statements. If your teacher accepts the existence of these different kind of characteristics in one animal, it does not make any sense in claiming that it is not possible.
Assuming that your teacher did not mean that. Instead he or she was only saying such a mix of characteristics cannot evolve in a single species. Then my question is why this cannot happen. If it is possible for animals to develop so many different characteristics that possesses by approximately 4500 different varieties of mammals living on land, in water, and capable of flying, then why couldn't evolve with egg laying characteristics. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that rules this out.
We’ve answered 319,642 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question