How does evolution explain the platypus?
339373
There are two theories to explain how the Platypus has evolved into what it is today. The first (theory B) shows that relatives of monotremes formed their own evolutionary branch that was completely different from development of both marsupials and placentals. This change is thought to have occurred 135 million years go, the beginning of the Cretaceous period. The marsupials and the placentals divided at some point 135-65 million years ago.\n\nThe Second (theory A) was proposed by Gregory (1947) and was not popular until the 1970s. He said that between 135-65 million years ago, the placentals and marsupials separated to their own way then later the monotremes and the marsupials went their own way.\n\nEvidence for this theory is that the reproductive systems of monotremes and marsupials are extremely similar. The embryos of both have some stage of encased shells in the gestation period. The only difference is that monotremes have the encased shells throughout the entire gestation period, whereas marsupials only have the encased shells for about two thirds of the gestation period.\n\nAre you denying that evolution exists at all?
131055
I'd like to think that you're asking this question with an earnest wish to get good informative answers. If that is the case, I invite you to see the link that Kurdiatcha left, or to do a web search for the term, or else, to read some good Evolution textbooks such as Ridley's "Evolution" or Freeman & Herron's "Evolutionary analysis", or Futuyma, or Stephen Jay Gould if you want something more entertaining.\nIf that is not the case, I'm not bothering anymore *sigh*
319290
The male platypus has poisonous spurs on its hind legs...not fangs. And apparently they're only used to fight off rival males during mating season. \n\nI'm Australian. So I'd know, right? ;-)
971103
You've got a few misconceptions there.  I'm going to assume you are really asking a question and not just fishing for agreement, so I'll try and straighten them out.\n\nFirst of all, IF man evolved from other primates, it would be more proper to say that mankind arose from -A- primate.  To draw an analogy, if you build a house out of lumber from trees, it doesn't mean there are no trees left in the world... only the trees you used to make your house are gone.  So it is perfectly plausible for monkeys to still be around even though something else might have evolved from them.  Populations become isolated and develop different traits all the time - try comparing someone from China, Iceland, and Africa some time.\n\nSecondly, I don't suspect any evolutionist would say that man evolved from monkeys.  Instead they would suggest that they had a common ancestor, and both man AND monkeys are different from that ancestor, just in different ways.\n\nAnd last is the question of transition.  And transition implies you're going somewhere.  Since none of us know what life will be like a hundred million years from now, it may very well be appropriate to say that EVERYTHING now is in a state of transition from what it used to be from what it will be.  Looking for 'half-fins' and the like is a straw-man argument, though there is certainly no dearth of vestigal organs and DNA around in most species, if you only look for it.\n\nI respect your desire to dispute the validity of evolution.  Most true scientists WELCOME having their theories challenged - it can only make them stronger and get rid of bad ones.  But if you're going to tilt at a windmill, make sure your lance is pointed in the right direction!
1104159
This idea that apes are still around, so we couldn't have evolved from them is a surprisingly common argument that reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.\n\nSome Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.\n\nSpeciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the Univer
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
111774
we evolved from one specific species of apes. evolution is a constant, dynamic process, that cen be seen even now as you look around. you have to be intelligent and have common sense and pay attention, and not beleive everything that is written. for proof, just look at the weather forecasters - almost everything they say is wrong, or they just flat out lie. I think they lie - nobody could screw up that much and keep a job.
1056346
If we assume evolution as by Darwin is basically right. Animals evolve to best survive in a certain ecological niche. In that respect intelligence was an adaptation to survive and prosper in response to certain environmental factors, and our species was the winner in that race to develop. In the same light why don’t all animals develop flight or gills etc. Other animals haven’t developed the same type of intelligence because they don’t need it. The Lingula sp. (a seashell) has existed in its current shape for well over 500 million years, as compared to our ½ to ¾ million years, it perfectly fills a certain niche and has no need to evolve further.\nHowever your question hits upon a salient point. Where is the actual evidence for this species development? We should have examples of inter-species e.g. super smart bunnies still able to breed with normal bunnies to create cleverer off spring. This missing link worried Darwin for his entire life and eventually caused him to doubt his own theory.
1166114
We did evolve from a previous species, one that diverged from an ancestor that was common to apes, but it's possible that the human line was never, strictly speaking, the SAME as an ape...it depends on how severe the genetic mutation was...\n\nddead: I like how you point out all of the hoaxes and don't state that there have been many skeletons found and recorded for Home habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis (while not necessarily man, still the same genus and possibly one that bred with sapiens), and you don't even mention the whole genus Australopithecus, a commonly cited group of ancestors...\n\nEvolution hasn't been proven, but there is a theory and ongoing science to support this theory, part of which is actual physical evidence...Creationists have stories and faith, but I guess that's enough for them...
391779
It doesn't work like that.  \n\nWe're going to have to back up a long ways so you can understand first how evolution works, then I can answer your question.\n\nOkay.  The dinosaurs didn't "turn into" birds.  Most of them died out due to massive climate changes that took millions of years.  Some smaller dinosaur species gradually, again over millions of years, evolved into avians.  \n\nOther reptiles are still around today, but in forms that can effetively compete with mammals, all of which started from a small rodent-like creature that coexisted with the dinosaurs.  After the dinos died out, this mammal evolved into the millions of mammalian species we see today, again over a period of perhaps 200 million years.\n\nSome of these mammals evolved into primates; some of these primates evolved into hominids, and some hominids evolved into homo sapiens.  The rest died out because they could not effectively compete against existing species.  "Survival of the Fittest" and all that.  Many primate species survived to evolve into the thousands of different kinds of primates we see today.\n\nIt's actually quite elegant, when you see the pattern clearly.
844921
The Duck-billed platypus from Australia (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) \n\n- semi-aquatic mammal found in Eastern Australia.\n- member of the Order Monotremata (Egg-lying mammals)\n\n- venomous, male platypuses have a spur on the hind foot which delivers a painful poison.\n- a recognizable and iconic symbol of Australia; and is featured on the Australian twenty-cent coin.\n\nKingdom: Animalia\nPhylum: Chordata\nClass: Mammalia\nOrder: Monotremata\nFamily:Ornithorhynchidae
423906
There's a hypothesis called the aquatic ape hypothesis that proposes that several of our characteristics (reduced body hair, layer of subcutaneous fat, poor kidneys, bipedal stance) and even our brains (fish are an important source of omega-3 fatty acids and great brain food) were the result of our evolving in or near water for a key period after we split from chimps.  Note that this is just a hypothesis not a theory.  There are alternate hypotheses that involve movement out of the forest and into savannah habitat and the same features are connected to that transition to savannah.  A theory, in contrast, is a type of hypothesis that is widely accepted and has loads of support from observations and experimental data.  Examples of theories are gravity and evolution.\n\nIf the aquatic ape hypothesis proves false, there is plenty of data to support our origin from water-dwelling amphibians prior to the Permian-Triassic extinction event.
523945
Based on the accumulating evidence, mammals, birds, and dinosaurs all evolved from reptiles.  In fact, mammals are way older than birds and were contemporary with the dinosaurs.\n\nThe other evidence is that reptiles evolved to fill all ecological niches including the oceans (ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, turtles, and crocodilians), the skies (pterosaurs), and dominant land animals (dinosaurs).\n\nThey have given live birth (ichthyosaurs), they've been cold blooded and warm blooded (dinosaurs).\n\nI guess the point is that you could go simplistic and make your race not very far evolved from what we think of as reptiles (scaly skin which must be shed, egg laying, cold blooded, forked tongue (snakes)).\n\nOr you could make the race some step in some other direction, scales but with mammary glands, warm blooded, with feathers kind of like velociraptor.  Maybe they developed the truncated rib-cage like that of mammals which allows for tortional twists."\n\nWhat if monkeys were marsupial with scaley skin and they killed their prey by sepsis caused by the nasty bacteria that live in their mouth transfered when they bite their prey (like komodo dragons)?  What if these creatures were the progenitors of humanoid reptiles?
120562
they evolved into real birds. fossils of archaeopterics somewhat tells how the myth originated. it is long naked bird looking like a reptile supposed the link between the two species.
1134801
Relationship to other primates had been suspected for years before Darwin   (1840's)-- simple observation.  Now with the deciphering of the geome for both chimps, and humans, relationship has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are all so similar even back to fish ---a central body with 5 protrusions -- head and 4 limbs.  I don't know it all, lady, but taught science and math for years, read Discover Magazine, Scientific American, and watch the Science channel.   Fascinating.... Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact, a lovely fact.  Our medical research on rats, dogs, and other critters would be worthless if evolution were not..   Helpful?  The question is toooo complicated to fully explain.  But you can start by reading scientific journals....   Good luck  Life is a life-long learning process.....  and god has nothing to do with it.  Critters survived, and evolved.  If a gene were detrimental, the critter carrying it didn't live long enough to procreate.  It the mutated gene was beneficial, it aided in that critter to live long enough to reproduce.  Lots of evolution is even occuring today.  Google things like Darwin's Finches, pigmy elephants, and of course dinasaurs.  \n\nOne quick interesting thing about moths in England to illustrate evolution:  In the early 1600's, before the Industrial Revolution began and coal producing smoke was a fact of life, a particular moth was mostly white, and blended into the tree bark on which it laid its eggs. The tree bark was white. Occasionally a grey-black one was hatched, but never lived very long -- birds got it.  As the Industrial Revolution took off in England, producing black soot, that black soot began to cover the trees' bark.  In less than 150 years, the white variety was gone, and there existed only the darker mutant.  Beginning in 1950 when England passed anti air pollution laws, those trees began loosing the soot off of the tree bark.  Yup, you guessed it..... the white variant is now dominant........ evolution in action  ,,,,,Helpful????
318151
There are different schools of thought on evolution.  Development of one species into a completely different species (macroevolution in a nutshell) is a ridiculous theory, in my opinion.  AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS STILL A THEORY, NOT FACT!  I hate it that people try to pull off this old theory as fact.\nBut I totally believe in gradual adaptations within a species.  That's microevolution (in a nutshell).
653816
Evolution is a theory.