Who is really "mixed-up," the duckbilled platypus of Australia, or the evolutionists who don't know how to explain him? Read, in this highly informative article, about one of the strangest creatures of all time; called a "living fossil" and "a patchwork mammal that time forgot" by stunned evolutionists. See for yourself how this furry little creature, "Old Flatfoot" (which is what "platypus" means, and has the best "scientific" name available, it seems) defies analysis by evolutionists.
"BIZARRE!" "Monstrous Misfit!" "UNBELIEVABLE!" "An impossible patchwork creature!" say evolutionists of the duckbill platypus. If the little creature could talk, he would probably say the same thing about evolutionary theories! Such are the shocked explicative evolutionists use when trying to describe and explain one of the "strangest" creatures alive today — the duckbill platypus. Native to Australia, the platypus SEEMS to be a "patchwork" animal — because evolution likes to see some sort of comparison or interrelationship in all living things. In trying to relate the platypus to various other animals, evolutionists have not been able to stop short of at least four or five widely differing creatures — nowhere near each other in the purely fanciful "evolutionary tree." The platypus, at first glance, looks like some strange little duck-like beaver-otter. It has webbed forefeet, like an otter, but with tough skin that extends beyond the toes for swimming, and retracts behind the toes for burrowing! The male of the species has a pit, or sharp, hollow spur on its hind foot. Like a pit viper, it carries a fairly poisonous venom. But its tail is muscular, and fiat, shaped like a beaver's tail — still, even though looking like a beaver tail, it is covered with fur instead of SCALES! The appearance of the construction of the shoulder, or "shoulder girdle" is definitely reptilian. And then there's the strange-looking "bill." But while ducks have a fairly hard and bony bill, the bill of the platypus is of a softer texture, like pliable skin, and is filled with highly sensitive nerves. You see, when a platypus dives to the bottom of his watery habitat to feed, he closes his eyes, and finds his way about with the most effective guidance system built into his "bill" — gobbling up worms and other marine foods. Since the little animal "suckles" its young, it is "classified" as a mammal. But — astounding though it seems, it lays eggs! The eggs are "reptilian" in nature, being much like turtle's eggs in appearance, and covered with a skin-like texture, instead of a hard shell. And the little platypus doesn't really "suckle" its young, but actually secretes the milk from a mammary opening, which then drips from the hair of the underbelly, and the young lap the milk from the hair! But in spite of the duck-like bill, beaver-like tail, snake-like eggs and venom fang, and with otter-like forefeet and young-suckling (but not really!) characteristics of the mammals, the little creature has only a single ventral opening for elimination, mating and birth — just like REPTILES! But the trouble is, he is warm-blooded, which reptiles are not! Further, he stores food in cheek pouches, like some mammals, but UNLIKE mammals, has no exterior ear, but only an opening into his hearing apparatus, which is located inside! No WONDER evolutionists get "mixed-up" when they attempt to "properly place" the duckbilled platypus in their evolutionary tree! In fact, early evolutionists chose the easiest way out — they simply refused to believe the creature existed. Others said it was a strange HOAX.
A Chinese Joke
Zoologists actually thought that some clever Chinese had SEWN TOGETHER parts of different animals. These patched-up animals — thought zoologists — had been sold to sailors as a joke. Around 1798, an English naturalist, George Shaw, described one of these patchwork platypuses. "Of all the mammals yet known it seems the most extraordinary in its conformation, exhibiting the perfect resemblance of the beak of a duck GRAFTED ON the head of a quadruped. "So accurate is the appearance, that, at first view, it naturally excites the idea of some DECEPTIVE PREPARATION by artificial means. "On a subject so extraordinary as the present, a degree of skepticism is not only pardonable, but laudable; and I ought perhaps to acknowledge that I almost DOUBT the testimony of my own eyes" (The Platypus, Harry Burrell, pages 17, 19 — a few words slightly changed to bring language up to date). This creature was so strange, one scientist even dubbed it "paradoxus." Fortunately, naturalists didn't know that the platypus laid eggs and suckled its young at the time. Otherwise, sanity among that class of scientists may have been sharply curtailed. Another anatomist, from Edinburgh, Scotland had this to say about the platypus: "It is well known that specimens of this very extraordinary animal when first brought to Europe were considered by many to be IMPOSITIONS. They reached England by vessels which had navigated the Indian seas, a circumstance arousing the suspicions of scientists, aware of the monstrous impostures which the artful Chinese then practiced on European adventurers. "These oriental taxidermists were quite notorious for their skill in constructing NONEXISTENT ANIMALS for sale to credulous seamen, such as the so-called 'eastern mermaid,' to be seen occasionally in curiosity shops to this day, consisting of the forepart of a monkey skillfully stitched to the tail of a fish" (Furred Animals of Australia, Ellis Troughton, page 4).
Platypus Finally Accepted
But it wasn't any Chinese joke! And it wasn't a mistake. Here was a creature — on the basis of "scientific" classification — which could either be mammal, bird or reptile! The platypus simply did not FIT the evolutionary scheme of things. Even more amazing, there was NOTHING transitional about the platypus. He was highly intelligent and remarkably built to fit his environment. Since a live or preserved specimen had never been seen, most zoologists "pooh-poohed" the idea that such a creature could exist. But in the early 1800's the platypus won his place of honor as a bona fide inhabitant of the earth! "The furor touched off by the written description of the platypus was revived and amplified a few years later when the British Museum received a pair of pickled specimens sent in a cask of spirits by Governor James Hunter of New South Wales, Australia. "Dried skins had been received before, but these were the FIRST actual specimens to be seen outside the Antipodes. "They were turned over to Everard Home, a distinguished anatomist, for dissection. Dr. Home's report left the members of the Royal Society in a state of stunned incredulity. He pronounced this egg-laying aquatic mammal OUT-RAGEOUS BUT GENUINE!" (Marvels and Mysteries of Our Animal World, Reader's Digest Publication, page 82)
Shock to Zoologists
Here's another admission of shock: "Since the aim of science is to find order in the apparent chaos of the natural world, it came as a SHOCK to zoologists 160 years ago to confront a small furry animal with a beaver-like tail and a duck-like bill" (The Wonders of Life on Earth, Editors of Life, page 174). No animal has given such a rise to so much controversy among scientists and evolutionists. Another exclamation of shock appeared in a recent Australian publication: "Australia is a land... of the oddest animal misfits on the face of the earth... platypuses, besides being almost UNBELIEVABLE at first sight, are perhaps the most adaptable creatures that ever walked, swam, or burrowed! "They have absorbed EVERY MAD TRICK that evolution has handed out" (Walkabout, article, "He's Just an Old Fossil," Kendrick Howard, page 12). Ah, now we're getting closer to the problem. Why is he an "animal misfit"? Because it appears that the platypus has too many evolutionary innovations under one skin. Remember, there's nothing weird about a platypus. He's not a misfit. He isn't handicapped. He's not lame. As a matter of fact, the platypus does quite well for himself. But he bothers evolutionists! Oh, they try to explain him away. But in the back of their heads, evolutionists must feel rather uneasy about the plague of platypuses. Another book accuses the innocent platypus of this: "The platypus of Australia and Tasmania fare) the MOST BIZARRE of living mammals" (Evolution, LIFE NATURE LIBRARY, page 60). But what is really "bizarre" about the platypus? Absolutely nothing. He's perfectly designed for his specific place in "nature," a fine swimmer, a good burrower, a hardy, happy, busy little creature who gazes balefully at the hysterical accusations of scientists whose cherished theories left no room for him. Can the platypus help it if evolutionists' theories were so weirdly inadequate they provided no space for his existence? Think of it! The evolutionists believe even the various PARTS of the same animal are "unrelated," and yet they function together PERFECTLY! Evolution demands we explain all life forms, no matter HOW "strange" appearing (and what could be stranger than an elephant, or a giraffe, or a rhinoceros, or a narwhal?) as having GRADUALLY evolved from common, early ancestors. This gradual evolution, they insist, was guided by the ALL-POWERFUL pseudo-god spoken of in so many texts, "natural selection." This "natural selection" more or less AUTOMATICALLY determined which creatures were best suited to their environment — which could "adapt" or go through some sort of required "change" demanded by changing environment. In attempting to portray these imagined "changes" and "adaptations," evolution offers views of strange "trees" — pictures of various "simple" life forms, followed by crustaceans, jellyfish and the like, branching off into plants, fishes, amphibians, land mammals; up the trees to various leaping mammals and to birds, or from the land mammals to man. Did it ever occur to the average layman that all such attempts to "show" an evolutionary process by various "relationships" in such creatures is pure inference by analogy? And did it never occur to us that analogies PROVE NOTHING? Does it never occur to the layman to demand evidence of the multiple THOUSANDS of "intermediate" species which could possibly SUBSTANTIATE such a fantastic story? That there would be infinitely more varieties of creatures with HALF-scales HALF-feathers than with whole ones? And especially, since these creatures (which did not exist) were "not so well equipped" to survive, that the fossil records should ABOUND with such evidence — when in reality it is utterly vacant?
The Very First "Platy-whatever"
Based on the evolutionary demands for "gradual" change by "natural selection" let's be logical. Let's walk back in time. Back, back — millions or billions (or, if evolution insists, even quintillions) of years ago. We are looking at our first little "platy-whatever." He is not, decidedly, a "full-fledged" platypus, complete with beaver's tail, duck's bill, otter's body, snake's fang, mammal's glands or turtle's eggs! Somehow, he is somewhere in between, or under, or somewhere around one or the other of these "stages." Let's say he lives along the banks of a stream. But he can't swim yet, because, being like any other normal burrowing animal, he has claws only for digging, hasn't evolved retractable webbed feet, nor developed a tail for a keel, nor learned to hold his breath that long, nor developed waterproof hair. But if that's true, then why develop retractable webbed feet, and then decide to swim only with his forefeet, dragging the hind feet rather uselessly along after? The hungry "platy-whatever" pauses by the side of the stream. Formerly, (since he obviously spent MOST of his time on dry land) he was accustomed to eating various tiny animals, or plants, or whatever may have suited his particular fancy. But it enters his mind to eat soft, water-soaked worms! But WHY should he want to begin feeding on the bottom of streams, when he can't see any food there, and he can't swim underwater, either? And if he MUST begin feeding along stream bottoms in order to survive, then why don't ALL CREATURES ON EARTH with a similar diet feed along on stream bottoms? How did all the other myriad of creatures keep "surviving" without ever getting wetter than the drenching a good rain gives them? If this first "platy-whatever" had to evolve water-feeding apparatus, then he only evolved it because he needed it. And if he needed it that means he wasn't getting sufficient food where he was to survive. But if he couldn't have survived where he was — and obviously, couldn't have succeeded in obtaining food from stream bottoms until he had gradually, over MILLIONS OF YEARS, evolved that supersensitive bill, and those retractable, skin-covered forefeet, and his whole, specially designed aquatic body and tail — then he obviously starved to death, and therefore does not exist today. It should be obvious to any thinking person that his very first attempts to feed along the bottom of streams would have led to one of two things. First, either a successful enough feeding to satisfy him — meaning he was already perfectly adapted to obtain food in that fashion, and therefore should have survived as a "platy-whatever" instead of a "platypus." Or, secondly, an empty stomach and complete frustration, leading him to evolve into something else. He dives into the water. But — alas! He can't swim! His hair is not water resistant. Besides, he can't see — and as yet has not "evolved" his extremely sensitive, skin-covered, navigator's and food-finder's mechanism in his bill — after all, he's never HAD to search for underwater worms with his EYES CLOSED before! So, laden with water — forefeet clawing to no avail, for lack of webs, hind feet hanging uselessly, he is caught in the turbid current, and swept away into the sands of time — where he appears, not as a "platypus," but as a "primitivus, beaverus, otterus, duckus beakus, incredibilus!" But no. That won't work, either. Because no such "creature" is FOUND in the fossils. Let's concentrate on his children surviving — since obviously, he is not even remotely EQUIPPED to survive! (At least, not as a platypus. And if he's equipped to survive as a SOMETHING ELSE — then WHY DIDN'T HE??) The first "platy-whatever" was wandering along the banks of his favorite stream one day in what finally became Australia, and ran smack into the most challenging question evolution could EVER have to answer — a mate, of the opposite sex, that looked exactly the same except for certain important details — at least, important to him! In due time, babies are born. Perhaps they began bearing the young ALIVE, and, not having yet "evolved" the special technique of secreting milk on a given signal that involves enough nerve endings and special sensory techniques — not to mention fathomless animal INSTINCT. — to give a computer a headache, the young starve to death. But let's forget all those problems — after all, evolution has. Let's try to imagine HOW ANY ONE GIVEN PART of the platypus COULD POSSIBLY have evolved! Take the eyes. The platypus has normal eyesight — but, in swimming underwater, keeps them tightly shut! So WHICH CAME FIRST? Did he begin surviving by keeping his eyes OPEN underwater, and finding the worms and other food visually? If so, then WHY EVOLVE that STUPID-LOOKING BEAK??? If his sensitive bill was ONLY necessary as a food-finding nerve center — then he would NOT have begun "evolving" it until it became NECESSARY! It was not really necessary if he could SEE, was it? And wouldn't it have been far easier to simply evolve a kind of skin over his eyes and continue keeping them open, instead of evolve the most surprising proboscis in the whole world? Shall we assume he BEGAN with the proboscis (nose) and without eyes? No — the very first time the very first platypus swam underwater to find food, he had to have a perfectly developed body for swimming, tail for a keel, since he swims with his front two legs only; webs to be stretched out over his burrowing toenails for paddling; waterproof hair to keep him from drowning; and an extremely sensitive nerve-filled "bill" for finding his way, and finding his food. The very first time two platypuses mated, they had to already have BUILT-IN instincts (so the male didn't accidentally jab the female with his dangerous "fang" on a hind foot, for instance??) so they would not walk off and leave the eggs, but await their hatching, and then proceed to "nurse" the offspring — NOT by nursing, but by secreting the milk onto underbelly hair at various intervals.
"... But is this `fair' reasoning?"
But is this "fair" to evolution? Is it "fair" to try to see LOGIC in its claims? Is it "fair" to attempt some sort of rational, logical, appealing method by which evolution COULD HAVE taken place? Or is that against the rules? Honestly, now — since EVOLUTIONISTS THEMSELVES have no real ANSWERS as to the true origin (once they have denied God!) of the platypus — do YOU CLAIM TO HAVE THE ANSWERS? Be HONEST with yourself! Haven't you just sort of "DAYDREAMED" about "how" this and that might "possibly" have occurred — but never subjected it to the cold light of LOGIC and FACT? Oh — you've heard the many "arguments," of course. But just how really LOGICAL are they? One might counter, "But perhaps the ancestors of the platypus began by brief "excursions" into the edge of the water — and, as they became more adept at finding food underwater, just naturally passed on these "acquired characteristics" to their offspring! Perhaps it took MILLIONS OF YEARS of developing platypuses to produce a "modern" platypus. A nice daydream. But it doesn't work. IF it were true, then the fossil record would be literally FILLED with the many, many "transitional" species that FINALLY gave rise to the platypus of today! But there Is no such fossil record. Let's take a calm look at the facts as presented by the evolutionists themselves.
Mammals from Reptiles?
There are around three thousand, two hundred totally different species of mammals, varying in size from the two fifths of an ounce shrew to the 130-ton whale! Zoologists, taxonomists, biologists, and a host of other specialists (the majority of whom are believers in evolution), believe mammals developed from reptiles. And, striking as it sounds, the platypus has been regarded as a DESCENDANT of a "link" between reptiles and mammals of over 150 million (or so) years ago. Said LIFE NATURE LIBRARY (The Land and Wildlife of Australia, page 61), "The reptilian characteristics of the platypus led scientists to conclude that it is descended from a link between the reptiles and mammals of over 150 million years ago. "At any rate, it is a highly specialized survivor of an ancient time." Again — these are "scientific"-sounding arguments, but utterly lacking In PROOF. If the platypus is only a descendant, a REMNANT of a "LINK" between such vastly different creatures as reptiles and mammals, then where are the literally MILLIONS of fossil remains of the literally THOUSANDS of intermediate species going in both directions from such a "link," and where are all the other intermediate species from the "link" to the platypus himself? Evolution remains silent to these questions — admitting the fossil record to be "incomplete." But is it, REALLY? Or is the theory woefully inadequate? Which?
Which "leads" do Evolutionists Follow?
What possible CLUES do evolutionists have, from the undeniable evidence of the fossils, and living creatures themselves, that a platypus evolved? Let's find whether they follow the facts, or the reasoning of others ABOUT a few facts. What does evolution say about the fossil record of the platypus? "UNHAPPILY, NO FOSSILS have yet been found in any continent which reveal the lineage of the monotremes (single-vent, or the platypus) prior to the last few million years in Australia itself" (The Land and Wildlife of Australia, LIFE NATURE LIBRARY, David Bergamini, page 62, 65). All fossil platypuses found look EXACTLY like "modern" platypuses. So there are no leads in the fossils. And none among living creatures. But, admits the author, zoologists have come to "general" agreement! "Following the lead of the eminent evolutionary authority George Gaylord Simpson, however, zoologists generally agree, that the monotremes' ancestors must have branched from the premammal stock and reached Australia at least 135 million years ago, perhaps even as long as 200 million years ago" (ibid). (Emphasis ours throughout article) Said another authority, "The platypus and its egg-laying cousins... have altered but little in more recent geological times, as shown by the fact that NO PETRIFIED REMAINS have yet been unearthed to trace their ancestral evolution" (Furred Animals of Australia, Ellis Troughton, page 1). So — there is NO proof from the fossil record, either in "recent" or in "ancient" times, regardless of the way in which it may be stated in various publications, that the platypus evolved at all!, Then how do evolutionists say they know it evolved? Easy. They just say it. You see, every untruth is based on a false premise that is always just carelessly ASSUMED, and casually TAKEN FOR GRANTED. Once a person has rejected his God, and swallowed the idea that all living things evolved from some other living thing — and that simple gave rise to complex, he fancies he sees certain "relationships" among them. That he may be looking at a remarkable PATTERN — a basic structural FRAMEWORK for ALL life forms that was thought out and carefully PLANNED, by a Great CREATOR, DESIGNER, LIFE-GIVER never occurs to the evolutionist. Or, if it does occur to him — it is quickly discarded. Said one leading astrophysicist, "It is a terrible mystery how matter comes out of nothing. Could it have been something outside science?... "We try to stay out of philosophy and theology, but sometimes we are forced to think in bigger terms, to go back to something outside science." The platypus is another of those serious obstacles to the evolutionary theory — a living creature which has NO LIVING COUNTERPARTS and NO CLOSE RELATIVES in the fossil record. Therefore, science calls this little creature a "living fossil." In other words, the platypus, along with the ants, cockroaches, cycads, and the now famous coelacanth, have been dubbed "living fossils" because evolution is forced to admit they have NEVER CHANGED. That is, that their fossil ancestors, IF ANY, (and in the case of the platypus, there are none!) are exactly the SAME as the living creatures. So — as far as the actual evidence goes, a platypus has ALWAYS BEEN a platypus — that is, so far as actual EVIDENCE goes. But in the realm of speculation, all sorts of interesting pasts are assigned to this interesting little creature. One book ascribes this great feat to the platypus: "When the monotremes were cut off from the rest of the world they were just changing into mammals — but they NEVER QUITE FINISHED" (Marvelous Mammals: Monotremes and Marsupials, Bernice Kohn, page 13).
Does This Make Sense?
The current idea today is that animals — or whatever — evolve in POPULATIONS. That is, certain groups within a genus or species can adapt to changing conditions. As they evolve, the rest of the members of that group DIE, because they can't adapt to new environmental conditions. Applied to the platypus, it means that (according to evolutionists) as conditions changed, groups within the platypus tribe EVOLVED into other creatures. Meanwhile, all the platypuses, who DIDN'T change into other mammals died out. Do you see the problem? We STILL HAVE the platypus with us today! He shouldn't have continued to exist — but he does. And, for 50 to 150 million years, so say the evolutionists. Of course, the evolutionist weakly trys to explain this away. The idea is that the monotremes and MARSUPIALS survived in Australia because it was cut off from the rest of the earth. However, the OPOSSUM is a marsupial. But he lives in the United States, not Australia. Yet, this mammal does quite well among all the wild beasts. He doesn't see any need for evolving.
Building a Platypusary
Supposedly, some platypuses evolved over millions of years into other creatures. Supposedly, they were able to survive — whole populations of them — changes in environment over long periods. But this doesn't stack up with what we can SEE with our eyes. As a matter of fact, a platypus is one of the MOST SENSITIVE creatures on earth. This is proved by the countless attempts to keep platypuses alive apart from their native habitats. For example, back in 1913, an animal dealer wanted to export a platypus to the New York zoo. He approached Harry Burrell, who had great knowledge of the sensitive platypus. "'The platypus man,' as he became known ('Duckbill Dave' to his friends) knew you couldn't send this fellow anywhere without sending his entire home — or a reasonable facsimile. "So straight off you need a water tank. To this must be added a series of passages and an enclosed living chamber resembling his burrow along which he can waddle just as if back on the Lower Woop-Woop creek. "When he leaves the water he must have an entrance made on the principle of a washing-machine wringer... taking all these factors into account, Burrell came up with a contraption which he called a platypusary. His ingeniously designed portable model per mitted Mr. Platypus to go through the whole complicated ritual of feeding, exercising and drying-off" (Walkabout, article "He's Just An Old Fossil," Kendrick Howard, page 15). The first attempt at transport wasn't made until 1916. The animal survived one week. In 1922 another attempt was made. Out of five starters, only ONE platypus survived, for a time. He died 49 DAYS later. ONLY SEVEN of these strange creatures have ever been exported. All attempts to establish them beyond Australia have failed. One managed to stay alive ten years outside Australia. Another, one year. But, today, if you want to see a platypus — you have to go to Australia. "Here, in this substitute hideaway, at Healesville, two at least of the egg-laying furred mammals continue publicly to DEFEAT TIME AND REFUTE EVOLUTION, while putting on a daily act for visitors... matinees, daily, 24:30 p.m." (Walkabout, "He's Just an Old Fossil," Kendrick Howard, page 15, May, 1967). "Refutes evolution"? Whether the author really meant it or not — that is EXACTLY WHAT the platypus does do! Evolutionists claim that the platypus must have GRADUALLY evolved as his environment changed over millions of years. But only ONE — as far as we know — survived a change of environment more than one year, and died. He certainly didn't evolve in that short a stretch.
The Sensitive Platypus
David Fleay is a well-known individual who has worked extensively with the platypus. In the article, "Flight of the Platypus," for the National Geographic Magazine of October, 1958, he admitted this: "For 25 years I have dealt with platypuses, and I have come to the conclusion that few members of the animal kingdom are so difficult to keep in captivity... once caught, IT WILL SOON DIE if these [natural surroundings] are not duplicated. "Along with this specialization, it has a nervous system EXCEEDINGLY WELL DEVELOPED for a beast with such primitive features. "Subject the nocturnal platypus to too much noise, light, handling, keep it too wet or too dry, hold it in surroundings that do not remind it of home in the country — the result can be panic, frantic rushing about, DEATH WITHIN 24 HOURS." But, we are expected to believe that the platypus population survived MILLIONS of years as it was evolving into something else. Even common sense should tell anyone this is impossible. The creed of evolutionists is, "The PRESENT IS the key to the past." That is, whatever you can observe today can show you what happened in the past. In that case, the platypus is one more of the strong proofs that evolution DID NOT take place. The platypus nervous system is so highly organized that specimens have been known to die in the hands of a captor as he was taking the creature out of a river.
The Highly Sensitive Nervous System
We've already seen in the quote above how the nervous system confuses those zoologists who think evolution is true. The question is: Since the platypus is supposed to be such a primitive mammal WHY does he have such a well-developed nervous system? Not only that, but the BRAIN is too well developed for such a primitive beast, so reason evolutionists. But that doesn't do away with it. Notice, one perplexed admission: "The brain is SURPRISINGLY large — much larger in proportion to the body weight than that of any reptile... it cannot be said that the living monotremes are deficient in the extent of their cerebral hemispheres — they are indeed MYSTERIOUSLY WELL ENDOWED with cerebral cortex. "In the size and structure of its brain, then, the platypus proves to be an animal with a considerable degree of INTELLIGENCE, with a cerebrum better organized than that of the lower marsupials and even of some of the lower Monodelphia. A well-organized brain and a large surface of cerebral cortex indicate a degree of intelligence FAR REMOVED from that of reptiles" (The Platypus, Harry Burrell, page 63). Oh, oh! Here's another problem. In order to be a direct link between mammals and reptiles, the beast has to be "primitive." But alas! His brain is WELL DEVELOPED. How do you square that with evolution? You don't. And evolutionists ADMIT you can't. "Many zoologists believe that since premammal days the monotremes have evolved far less than other living mammals in their basic reproductive and skeletal structure... this, surely, is most remarkable. "Why, having once begun to enjoy the advantages of large brains and maternal care, were the monotremes not pushed on through the ages by the same forces of selection and survival that shaped the other mammals?... this is one of the RECURRENT RIDDLES OF EVOLUTION and as yet there is no answer to it..." (The Land and Wildlife of Australia, David Bergamini and Editors of Life, LIFE NATURE LIBRARY, page 66). Why can't evolutionists see? The platypus has webbed feet because he needs them for swimming. He needs his beaver-like tail for stabilization. He needs the brain he has because of his highly sensitive nervous system — especially his BILL! In turn, the platypus needs his bill to find food, and navigate underwater and build a burrow. The platypus didn't evolve, as should be obvious. He was CREATED by a Great God in wisdom and understanding.
The Proof of Creation
Every part of the platypus takes its place in a COORDINATED function that makes the platypus one of the awe-inspiring creatures we see around us. The platypus proves evolution cannot be true. He waves his bill at evolutionists in sad pity. It almost appears as though God made the platypus just to CONFUSE THE EVOLUTIONISTS! The platypus is one of God's roadblocks that warns theorists, "Watch your ideas, you're heading down a blind alley!" Unfortunately, too many scientists have NOT HEEDED that warning. But those of us who have the wit to see, ought to be able to understand from the creation around us, that GOD DOES EXIST. We should exclaim with David, "O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is FULL of thy riches. "So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts" (Psalm 104:24-25). And so is the dry land — full of the wondrous works of God. And the duckbill platypus is among those works. You live in a world of LAW and ORDER. The weather, the living plants, the breathtaking food chains in the sea, and in the very soil under your feet — the living creatures that are so amazingly complex, so perfectly suited to their every task, and in such wondrous balance in this world of teeming life — all follow definite patterns, fulfill definite, specific needs, and follow LAWS. The only LAWLESS creature you know of in the whole of lawful creation is MAN. Lawless, God-hating, God-rejecting MAN, who wants desperately to work out his OWN problems, to find his OWN way to peace, to achieve all the right effects while following the WRONG CAUSES! WHY such vanity-filled, insistent belief in evolution today? Simply because "natural selection" does not tell a scientist, or disillusioned, sarcastic young dupe in evolutionary study HOW TO LIVE. Evolution does not thunder out the chronicle of human folly, nor shout to us our incredible SINS, or COMMAND us how to OBEY! And this world wants a MUTE God. It wants a DEAD God. It wants a "first cause" who might have "started evolution" but not the very GOD OF THE BIBLE! But YOUR GOD DOES EXIST. The very God of the BIBLE, the FATHER of Jesus Christ of Nazareth LIVES! Christ is ALIVE. He will RULE YOU — yes He will, YOU — in the near future. Will you bow your knees of your OWN free choice now? Or will He FORCE you to your knees then?