What to say if somebody says to me..."How did the kangaroos and koalas get to Australia? "

[buffalo]

Has it occurred to you that evolution is extremely intelligent design. It shows signs of knowing exactly where creation was going right from the moment of the big bang. These psuedo intellectual names carrying implied meaning suggesting that evolution didn’t happen are simply people not being willing to examine reality and research into the past. Trying to simplify God’s creation and bring it down to man’s understanding is an insult to the supreme intelligence of God. Posing things like the eye is too complex to have formed by itself is nonsense, we all know flowers will turn towards the sun. So they are light sensitive, and over tens of millions of years these few cells gradually improve and eventually become eyes.

You can quote all the soft words spoken by the Vatican to avoid telling those who believe in creationism and “Intelligent Design”, which isn’t really intelligent design, but creationism in disguise but it proves only that the Vatican is diplomatic.

Frinders

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Did Adam look like God wanted Him to?

You are not distinguishing between ID the science and the philosophical conclusions the science requires.

 

[GEddie]

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Did Adam look like God wanted Him to?

What part of “omniscient” and “omnipotent” do you have trouble with???

Someone who is omnipotent can easily steer all of the processes involving DNA so as to determine the result in the final body. Someone who is omniscient can easily tell, no matter how many genetic cycles that DNA will have gone through, just what that final body’s appearance will be.

I won’t say anything about the e-word, but an all-powerful GOD could certainly make full use of it, if it happened.

ICXC NIKA,

 

[John21652]

Oh John, John, John, has falling off that horse injured your head more than the doctors thought? Someone who lives in Australia should at least know how to spell “platypus.”

Oh dear. How disappointing!!

Oh Little Soldier, Little Soldier, Little soldier, I just said to “L” with one key, is all! My head is fine. Ribs not so. But you’re right, it’s an “L” of a mistake I made!!

 

[buffalo]

What part of “omniscient” and “omnipotent” do you have trouble with???

Someone who is omnipotent can easily steer all of the processes involving DNA so as to determine the result in the final body. Someone who is omniscient can easily tell, no matter how many genetic cycles that DNA will have gone through, just what that final body’s appearance will be.

I won’t say anything about the e-word, but an all-powerful GOD could certainly make full use of it, if it happened.

ICXC NIKA,

So the mutations are not random but steered by God?

 

[GEddie]

So the mutations are not random but steered by God?

Yes, Omnipotence implies just that, even if it uses processes such as entropy to do the steering. It might well still look random to us.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[kenofken]

So the mutations are not random but steered by God?

No all-powerful God worth his salt would need to manually tinker with DNA. The science we have that is based on evolution IN NO WAY precludes the possibility of a divine being behind it all. It merely says that it is not necessary at the process levels we have been able to observe so far, and that life was not created in the simplistic manner defined by literal interpretations of Genesis. If a god truly needed to intervene in creation, it would most likely be at a much more fundamental level: the mass of Hydrogen or the property of subatomic particles, whatever was needed to allow the unfolding of a universe in which our kind of life would be possible.

There would be no need whatsoever for an omnipotent being to tinker any further. He would be able to forsee what would unfold in time. It may also be that our understanding of “in his image” is oversimplified. It may not have anything to do with physical appearance at all, but rather the mental faculties which give us a fraction of godlike-reasoning and power over life and death.

Of course even that is speculative. Hawking now says there’s no evidence that God’s direct hand was required at even these more fundamental levels. I don’t know a hundreth of the math needed to dispute his work, and neither to any of the apologists who shrilly denounce his work as some atheist political agenda.

At any rate, ID is not a science in any sense of the word. It bandies about the jargon of science and the trappings, but obeys none of its rules about evidence. It operates entirely outside of the realm of science, which works only with natural, testable (even if indirectly), explanations. It takes the absence of an explanation for something as evidence that no explanation is possible.

 

[Spirithound]

So the mutations are not random but steered by God?

How does this scenario differ from God’s foreknowledge of our free choices? God’s Eternal Law is still upheld no matter what happens.

 

[Frindon]

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Did Adam look like God wanted Him to?

You are not distinguishing between ID the science and the philosophical conclusions the science requires.

God knew what I would look like at the moment of the big bang. I really find this laughable. Do you really think that God didn’t know exactly what would result from creation, every detail, right from the big bang. If God is nothing other, He is super intelligent, way above what we can even imagine. Trying to make creation into something we can understand is at best naive and at worst an insult to God. God knew at the big bang which atoms would be in my body, and designed the big bang in that way. God is super efficient, he does not need to tinker.

Frinders

 

[Verbum]

Hi Frinders,

Well said. Few people understand that God is one eternal act, outside of time. God makes a choice among billions of possible universes. He knows how the universe begins, evolves and ends, as well as every single detail in between. If he chooses a universe in which animal and plant species evolves in a certain way, then we can say that he has willed every single happening in that evolutionary process. Nothing is random to God; everything is known from eternity.

That’s how things are from God’s point of view. From the creatures’ point of view, evolution is necessarily a random process, the survival of individuals depending on random factors, such as genetic accidents, natural phenomena, etc.

We can compare evolution to the weather. It has been said that a butterfly fluttering its wings in Indonesia could eventually cause a hurricane in the Atlantic. This action of the butterfly is a random event, but God knows about it from all eternity. It is part of the world He has chosen to create. So it is not random to Him, but it is random in the natural scheme of things.

Verbum

 

[LittleSoldier]

Oh, come on, you’ve never mistyped a word that you otherwise know how to spell???

ICXC NIKA.

NVER!!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

I cannot tell between the scientists and nonscientists who post here unless they identify themselves. The underlying topic being referred to - evolution - is under a temporary ban.

God bless,
Ed

I noticed that you still haven’t given any examples, as I asked you to. Do you not have any?

 

[buffalo]

What part of “omniscient” and “omnipotent” do you have trouble with???

Someone who is omnipotent can easily steer all of the processes involving DNA so as to determine the result in the final body. Someone who is omniscient can easily tell, no matter how many genetic cycles that DNA will have gone through, just what that final body’s appearance will be.

I won’t say anything about the e-word, but an all-powerful GOD could certainly make full use of it, if it happened.

ICXC NIKA,

Thanks for the IDvolution plug.

 

[buffalo]

No all-powerful God worth his salt would need to manually tinker with DNA. The science we have that is based on evolution IN NO WAY precludes the possibility of a divine being behind it all. It merely says that it is not necessary at the process levels we have been able to observe so far, and that life was not created in the simplistic manner defined by literal interpretations of Genesis. If a god truly needed to intervene in creation, it would most likely be at a much more fundamental level: the mass of Hydrogen or the property of subatomic particles, whatever was needed to allow the unfolding of a universe in which our kind of life would be possible.

There would be no need whatsoever for an omnipotent being to tinker any further. He would be able to forsee what would unfold in time. It may also be that our understanding of “in his image” is oversimplified. It may not have anything to do with physical appearance at all, but rather the mental faculties which give us a fraction of godlike-reasoning and power over life and death.

At any rate, ID is not a science in any sense of the word. It bandies about the jargon of science and the trappings, but obeys none of its rules about evidence. It operates entirely outside of the realm of science, which works only with natural, testable (even if indirectly), explanations. It takes the absence of an explanation for something as evidence that no explanation is possible.

Another plug for IDvolution. Thanks.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Another plug for IDvolution. Thanks.

I agree. Of course God can use any means He wishes for His plans. IMO any sort of theistic theory of “e” must be based on God’s actions (which are always intelligent).

Did you think anyone felt differently? It’s only the mechanics that I have problems with. I’ve always believed that “e” is an example of intelligent design. It has to be.

 

[rdscheirer]

callmeChris-exellent reply- how about Steven Hawkings recent release thar there are multiple universes all creaated by sheer chance. I majored in. Physics and we always had a picnic at the end of the year with the classisits vs. the modernists in a softball game. The modernists believed that according to Quantum Mechanics Theory that the atoms and molecules one the bat could line up with the atoms and molecules on the the ball and the ball could pass right through the bat.

Its the connundrum of the infinite potential well- a well so deep that nothing can get out but Quantum Theory says ther is a finite chance that a particle can escape the well.

 

[buffalo]

callmeChris-exellent reply- how about Steven Hawkings recent release thar there are multiple universes all creaated by sheer chance. I majored in. Physics and we always had a picnic at the end of the year with the classisits vs. the modernists in a softball game. The modernists believed that according to Quantum Mechanics Theory that the atoms and molecules one the bat could line up with the atoms and molecules on the the ball and the ball could pass right through the bat.

Its the connundrum of the infinite potential well- a well so deep that nothing can get out but Quantum Theory says ther is a finite chance that a particle can escape the well.

There are so many times I swung and missed and I swear I hit that ball. Now I know why.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Now tell us about the Patypus!

OK, I will tell you about the platypus (or Patypus as you call it) :
Biology, including herpetology and mammalogy (both of which I studied in college), ornithology, ichthyology, entomology, marine biology, and botany (which I am studying now, on my own) is my field, along with behavioral psychology and some other things which aren’t relevant here.

IMHO the duck-billed platypus is one of the most fascinating animals on the earth.
First, let’s examine the biology of the platypus:

“Pride of place goes to the platypus, a creature with very amazing features which are only seen in very diverse species: mammals - mammary glands (all), three ear bones (all), beaver like tail, fur (many); reptiles - cloaca (all) (however, it does have a uterus and as in birds, only one of the ovaries is functional), egg laying (all), poison (snakes) spurs for defense; birds - duck like bill (which is soft however), it breathes through the bill like the duck, duck like webbed feet (however, these feet have claws in the front and spurs in the back); fish - it has an amazing electro receptor (paddle fish) in its bill which allows it to catch prey under water while its eyes are closed and its hearing shut, it also has a very large vocalization range more bird-like than anything found in other mammals (except man). The platypus is perfectly designed for feeding and swimming in the water and it has to be - it eats about half its weight in food a day! However, it lives on land in burrows it digs with its claws and can also feed on insects and other land creatures.”

This article also offers an aboriginal tale of how the platypus came into existence:

The platypus resulted from a young female duck’s disobedience. Duck lived with others of their kind in a sheltered river pond. All of them were in constant fear of Mulloka, the Water Devil, and never strayed far from their pond. But one day, against the advice of her elders, Duck ventured downstream and eventually found herself at a patch of grass on the riverbank. Unaware that this was the territory of the lonely Water-rat, she climbed out. Hearing duck, Water-rat emerged, threatened her with his spear and, dragging her underground, forced her to mate with him. By the time of egg-hatching, Duck was ashamed to have to lead out two extraordinary offspring. They had bills and webbed feet, but instead of two feet they had four and instead of feathers they had fur, while on each hind leg they had a sharp spike like Water-rat’s spear. The first members of the platypus race were born.

simpletoremember.com/articles/a/evolution-facts/

---

CREATIONISM

Is the duck-billed platypus a joke God put on earth to confound and confuse us? Is He up in heaven laughing at us (though always with love) as we struggle to understand such a strange creature?

What about creationism? Although I don’t consider creationism to be a science, this thread is not restricted to science alone and creationists should certainly have their say:

"Monotremes possess at least two similarities to Marsupials that suggest a possible link related to their origins. First and most importantly they are both mammals that have an alternative reproductive system to the majority on earth. Neither have a placenta, and both give birth much earlier than placental mammals. The young of the marsupial matures following birth inside a pouch. The second difference suggesting an associated origin, is the fact they are also the only other natural mammalian inhabitants of Australia. Prior to the modern introduction of placentals such as the dingo, the continent was inhabited exclusively by monotreme and marsupial mammals. Most of the 140 species of marsupials in Australia are found nowhere else in the world, and the naturally occurring marsupial in the United States is the possum, Didelphis marsupialis. This distribution pattern must be explained through natural affects upon these animals following their release from the ark.

[The following quote does not follow immediately and the site should be accessed for further study of a creationism theory.]

"This creation science theory may finally lay to rest a mystery that has caused a great many people to believe in the evolution of all animals from a common ancestor. The absence of plancentals or exclusive existence of multiple marsupials and the monotremes on Australia can not be explained by a natural postflood migration from Mt. Ararat in Turkey. This very fact has even caused a great many Christians to instead accept that these inhabitants must have evolved in Australia from a single ancestor.

[bolding added]

I’ve included these quotes because they have a direct bearing on the OP. For further info on this site please click on the following link:

nwcreation.net/platypus.html

The following link does a good job of debunking some creationist views of the present form of the platypus. I would like to provide the article as a whole, but in keeping with CAF rules, I will provide a link for anyone who is interested. I recommend that this article be read from beginning to end, as it provides both the creationist view and the reasons why the authors of this article believe that creationism does not explain the platypus or its putative journey from the Ark.

talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

-----continued-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continued-----

---

Evolutionary Theory

Now, on to biology and development of the modern platypus:

Please read the following and then check the link. The article is from National Geographic and makes for some interesting reading.

"The duck-billed mammal has a genetic affinity with both reptiles and birds, according to a new study. The platypus genome has long been an important goal for biologists seeking to understand the origins of mammal evolution. The study, appearing in today’s edition of the journal Nature, gives scientists a new window into the genetic architecture of the earliest mammals.

‘The platypus genome, like the animal itself, is an amazing amalgam of reptile-like and mammal-like features,’ said project co-leader Jennifer Graves, of the Australian National University in Canberra. The analysis confirms that the platypus was the earliest offshoot of the mammalian family tree, Graves noted. The group of animals called monotremes—which includes the platypus and the closely related echidna—is thought to have split from other mammals at least 166 million years ago. That early divergence means platypus genes carry information from a transitional point on the evolutionary time line leading from reptiles to mammals, said project leader Wesley Warren of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080507-platypus.html

The following article is well-written and a pleasure to read. I highly recommend it. Here is the gist of the article:

“The fascinating mix of features in the platypus genome provides many clues to the function and evolution of all mammalian genomes,” says Richard K. Wilson, Ph.D., director of the The Genome Center at Washington University and the paper’s senior author. "By comparing the platypus genome to other mammalian genomes, we’ll be able to study genes that have been conserved throughout evolution.

"The platypus represents the earliest offshoot of the mammalian lineage some 166 million years ago from primitive ancestors that had features of both mammals and reptiles. “What is unique about the platypus is that it has retained a large overlap between two very different classifications, while later mammals lost the features of reptiles,” says Wes Warren, Ph.D., an assistant professor of genetics, who led the project.

"Far from being a joke, the platypus is a strong piece of evidence for the theory of evolution (not that it really needed additional ones) and, scientifically speaking, a rich source of insight into the evolution of mammals from reptile-birds (birds are considered a group of reptiles, in particular, part of the same line of descent as dinosaurs).

"Biologists already knew quite a bit about this strange creature, for instance that it produces milk (like any mammal) though it doesn’t have nipples (unlike any other mammal). This suggested that the ability to produce milk evolved before specialized anatomical structures to deliver it, or – less likely – that the platypus lost the nipples sometimes after its divergence from the rest of the mammalian lineage. Molecular biology now confirms that platypuses have genes that produce casein proteins, an essential element of true milk, which means that milk production evolved about 166 million years ago, after the mammal-sauropsid split (living sauropsids include snakes, lizards, crocodiles, turtles and of course birds; extinct ones comprise plesiosaurs and pterosaurs).

"The platypus genome project has confirmed what evolutionary biologists had surmised from the morphological and physiological features of the platypus: the animal’s biology is a bridge (a “missing link,” if you will) between reptiles and mammals, with genetic features found in each group (again, including birds, which are really flying reptiles). Moreover, some of the features of the platypus are not the result of common ancestry with the reptiles, but of another well known evolutionary phenomenon: convergence. For instance, male platypuses have a spur that can deliver a venom powerful enough to kill a dog. A chemical analysis of the venom reveals that it is made of a “cocktail” of various peptides (short proteins), similar to the venom of snakes. Except that the platypus did not inherit its venom-making ability from reptiles, it evolved it independently, as the molecular studies clearly show.

science20.com/rationally_speaking/the_platypus_evolution_and_why_piattelli_palmarini_is_wrong

-----continued-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continued-----

And last, but not least, there is a very good youtube video:

youtube.com/watch?v=OVneqhu9oZk

I aplogize for any confusion about the links I provided. I’ve had a hard time over the last few days with correlating articles and quotes from those articles.

But I hope you find this animal as interesting and endearing as I have.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There are so many times I swung and missed and I swear I hit that ball. Now I know why.

Yes, this explains why I was such a poor softball player. In fact, in the league I belonged to at USC (formed of people who worked in the accounting and computer support offices) we came in dead last and we only won the one game we won because the other team was short a player so we sent over our worst player to fill in (fortunately it wasn’t me).

I received a trophy for “Most Injured Player.”

Now it all becomes clear. Hmmmm…