Worldwide Church of God Archives
GO BACK TO
BOOK AND BOOKLETSEVOLUTION - A Whale of a Tale, or -
... The Dilemma of Dolphins and Duckbills!
PDF Download - [DOWNLOAD]
TWO "STRANGE" MAMMALS
The picture on the cover was taken by our photographer at Marine-land
of the Pacific in California. It shows an Atlantic bottle-nose dolphin
in the 300,000 gallon Sea Arena.
following pages are other photographs showing these amazing mammals and
their clever antics. Most were taken by our own staff photographers at
the famous Marineland of the Pacific mentioned above.
The oceanarium buys 185 tons of fresh frozen fish every year to feed
their salty inhabitants. Marineland pumps more than 12,000,000 gallons
of filtered sea water through its tanks daily.
Besides the Sea Arena, there is a 640,000 gallon whale tank house, a
540,000 gallon tank containing some 4,000 fishes of 100 varieties, plus
other assorted specimens and tanks — all to produce a whale of a show!
Our photographs of the duckbill platypus in the interior were also
"shot" by Ambassador College photographers in the special tanks built
at the Sir Colen McKenzie Sanctuary, Healesville, Australia. Only in
Australia can a person see these fascinating duckbills.
Both the dolphins and duckbills are classified as mammals. The one
thing both share in common is their extremely unusual characteristics.
Both of these mammals defy evolutionists and shatter evolutionary
A WHALE of a TALE, or - The Dilemma of Dolphins and Duckbills!
DOLPHINS and whales EVOLVE? Evolution says fish grew lungs and
slithered ashore. Then, claims evolution, many RETURNED to the sea,
DISCARDED their legs, changed them info flippers, "evolved" a built-in
grin and became dolphins and whales. DID THEY, REALLY? Dolphins grin at
such stories — and whales prove the whole thing is a fluke! And 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 booklet, about one of the strangest creatures of all time,
called a living fossil" and a "patchwork" mammal that time forgot. See
how both dolphins and duckbills drive evolutionists into a great
A man at the helm of an
outboard motor boat in Hokianga Harbour, New Zealand, was startled to
see a playful Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin cavorting in his wake. Soon,
many boat operators noted the dolphin following their boats — strangely
attracted, it seemed, to the sound of their motors.
Then, bathers in the surf at the little beach town of Opononi began
seeing the lonely female dolphin, swimming gaily among them in the
As the dolphin grew more and
more familiar with the bathers, she would swim with them, even allowing
herself to be stroked and held. She seemed to like children best — and
would play ball with them, retrieving a ball and throwing it back to
them with her mouth. She would even let some of the smaller ones ride
on her back.
The little town of Opononi
called the lonely female dolphin "Opo," and her fame spread throughout
New Zealand, and finally around the world. The little hotel was booked
solid for months in advance, and the curious came from everywhere.
Campers caused traffic jams as the crowds grew. Opononi passed a
special law to protect the friendly creature, and a sign was erected at
the town's entrance reading, "Welcome to Opononi, but don't try to
shoot our gay dolphin!"
From 1955 to 1956 the
fame of the friendly creature mounted until one morning when she did
not appear. Children were apprehensive, and many concerned people
expressed fear she had been killed, or injured. An extensive search
finally discovered her body, washed ashore among some rocks. It was
theorized the playful porpoise had been attracted by a fisherman's
motor, and, swimming happily up to the boat, had been killed by a
charge of explosives the fisherman was using to kill and stun fish.
The townspeople buried Opo in a sad, formal ceremony; and a grave
marker and monument to the friendly dolphin still remain.
And then there was "Pelorus Jack," a famous dolphin who escorted ships
and boats across Admiralty Bay, New Zealand, for three decades. Many
tourists planned to make this steamship run, just to catch a glimpse of
the dolphin — and a special law was passed to protect him.
The Remarkable Intelligence of Dolphins
These experiences with the friendly creatures we call "Dolphins" or
"Porpoises" (either term is correct) have led man to discover, in
recent years, that the toothed whales and dolphins are among some of
the most intelligent of all creatures — rated by some as superior to
dogs and horses.
Visitors to the large
Oceanariums are amazed at the antics of captive porpoises — but not as
amazed as their trainers at their grasp of directions, and the speed
with which they learn. A professional animal trainer, Wally Ross, said,
"After you've worked with porpoises — chimpanzees, dogs, horses and
elephants seem as dull as white mice."
The porpoises play many kinds of games —
leap out of the water in graceful formation — tow dogs in tiny boats
across lagoons, seize rings, running flags up poles, and can toss a
football 50 or 60 feet (and with a perfect spiral!).
Porpoises can throw things with great accuracy. Some time ago, a group
of porpoises at Marineland demonstrated their ability by throwing 20
rare tropical fish out of their tank. They didn't eat any of them —
just ejected them from the tank they considered their own. As if to rub
salt in the wound — after they had thrown the rare fish, one by one,
into the spectator area, they saved the very last one until the right
moment, and then bounced it off the head of the aquarium director as he
left the tank.
Scientists are striving to
measure the intelligence of the porpoises — and are continually amazed
at the creatures.
No "Bends," No Headaches, No Shortness of Breath!
But porpoises are being used for far more than casual entertainment and amusement.
Today, in the U. S. Navy's man-in-the-sea program, Sealab II, off San
Diego, the Navy uses a seven-foot porpoise named "Tuffy" as a messenger
Porpoises can dive more than 1,000 feet
below the ocean surface and come up without wasting time on
decompression (an absolute necessity for divers breathing compressed
air for any length of time under certain depths. Otherwise death or
permanent injury can occur). They can swim at speeds of better than 24
miles per hour and locate objects up to 400 yards away with underwater
sonar clicks. They can also communicate on two separate voice channels
Tuffy was tested in Sealab
experiments by a diver turning off his homing buzzer, and fastening a
nylon cord to Tuffy's plastic harness. The dolphin immediately carried
the line to another diver, who, pretending to be lost, had turned on a
buzzer in the murky water 160 feet away. (Visibility, 10 feet.)
This experiment led to Tuffy's ability to retrieve a buzzer-equipped
$4,700 rocket booster shot 200 yards out into the Pacific.
When the Sealab divers were remaining at 205 feet down for 15-day
periods, Tuffy was their messenger to the surface. He wore a plastic
harness, carried their mail back and forth in a waterproof tube, and
took tools to the divers.
Dolphins emit a
series of clicks, whistles and blatting sounds underwater — and make
squawks and squeeks with their heads out of water. Currently, in
Pasadena, scientists are trying to decipher the manner in which the
creatures "talk" by running a series of recorded sounds through
computers to find sound patterns, and see in what way different sounds
are related to different actions.
Inset] DEXTROUS DOLPHINS — ... and away we go! Four bottle-nosed
dolphins flip through the air, an example of their ability to be
The dolphin's sonar is so
sophisticated, he can direct it, unlike man-made sonar. Most of man's
sonar uses a pure tone — while that of the dolphins mixes the signals
into high-and low-frequency components.
Another thing — no one has ever been able to "jam" a dolphin's sonar.
Says Doctor Sidney Galler of ONR (Office of Naval Research), "The
porpoise's echo-location system and navigation capability is far
superior to the most sophisticated system we have in our most modern
submarines, and it weighs only a few pounds. This is a marvel of
The "sonar" of the
porpoises is termed "second to none," including the echo-ranging of the
bats. But scientists don't yet know how the dolphins and whales make
They have no vocal cords!
The Toothed Whales
All dolphins and whales are mammals. They are warm-blooded,
air-breathing creatures who bear their young alive, and suckle them,
like all mammals. But whales are divided into different categories,
depending upon their specialized food-getting equipment.
The great Sperm Whale has teeth, while the mammoth Right Whale, and Blue Whale do not.
The migrations of the whales, their feeding habits, their ability to
store up vast amounts of body fat, their prodigious size and strength,
all have given rise to a sense of awe and amazement at these monsters
of all life.
Their remarkable ability to
navigate in the pitch darkness of the ocean depths (there is no light
whatever below approximately 1,000 feet — but only eternal blackness)
has amazed whalers and scientists. Dolphins generally do not go below
1,000 feet — but the great whales have been known to go far deeper.
Has it ever occurred to you that we are living among creatures every
whit as amazing, as awesome, as terrifying, or as humorous, as those
found in the fossil record?
The biggest dinosaur would be dwarfed beside the giant whales now swimming in the oceans!
But think of the stories you would read if whales had been found only as fossils!
Is the mammoth whale really the result of an evolutionary return to the sea?
Did dolphins and toothed whales really become disgusted with their
"life on land," and effect all those remarkable changes (only a few of
which have been mentioned here) to enable them to become dolphins and
So evolution would have you believe.
But the whales and dolphins — among the most remarkable of all living
creatures — cannot be explained away by unimaginable caprice. While
whales have a whale of a tale to tell — and the stories about them all
are well worth reading — those tales are nowhere near the "whoppers" of
the supposed story of their "evolution."
A Whale of a Fish Story
Evolutionists say "the whale's past is extremely obscure. All we know
is that sometime . . . some smallish, four-footed land animals began a
series of extraordinarily rapid evolutionary changes. In the
geologically short span of 50 million years they learned to swim
instead of walk, and to reproduce offspring able to swim from the
moment they left the womb." (The Living World of the Sea, William J.
Cromie, p. 268-269.)
But that's only a part
of the fantastic story. Later, goes the tale, these beasts lost their
ears and hind legs — developed a body shaped like a torpedo, with a
horizontal tail, arranged for their nostrils to move up to the top of
their heads, lost their hair, totally changed their whole metabolism,
their bone structure, their skin texture and composition, enlarged
their brains, altered their nervous system, changed their whole
digestive apparatus, altered their eyes, their teeth and their ears —
and became dolphins and toothed whales.
did they really do all this? Can it be proved? Is there fossil
evidence? Are these ideas accurate? How could they "gradually" change
in such a drastic manner? What caused these changes?
A Plethora of Missing Evidence
If you were to ask an evolutionist, "Are you sure whales and dolphins
used to be land animals?" he would probably answer, "Sure, we're sure!"
If you asked next, "But do you have any proof?" His answer would be....
but let's quote from some answers to just such questions.
"After adapting to life on land, the ancestors of porpoises, for
reasons no one knows, went back to the sea. This happened about fifty
million years ago; and just what the land animal was like no one can be
sure, for the 'missing links' in its evolution are lost beneath the
sea. It is certain, however, that the land mammal went through a long
process of readapting to life in the water." ("Porpoises, Our Friends in the Sea," Robert Conly, National Geographic, p. 404-406, Sept. 1966.)
How about that? How would you like to be tried in court by that kind of "evidence?"
First you're told, in definite, positive terms, these creatures did
evolve from land animals. What kind of land animals? No one knows.
Where is the evidence? It's nonexistent. Missing. How can they be so
sure? Well — they just are!
admitted, "As the science of oceanography progresses, we may find the
whales' complete skeletal record in the oceans' bottoms. Until then the
guesses are further apart than those for man's evolutionary record."
(Man and Dolphin, John C. Lilly, p. 181.)
Notice it carefully. The ideas about man's evolution are, admittedly,
guesses. And some of the guesses are pretty wild. But, admits evolution
— the guesses concerning the past "development" of whales are even
That's really crawling out on a limb. Or, perhaps we should say, a flipper.
how does an intricately designed, "highly specialized" (a term
evolutionists use to hide their amazement of the marvelous complexity
of many creatures) animal "evolve?" How does "evolution" occur?
The evolutionists theorize that, given enough time virtually anything
can happen. Do explosions in print shops produce the unabridged
dictionary? Do dump trucks, dumping a load of bricks, produce palatial
mansions, complete with carpets, appliances, chandeliers, and rare
paintings? Do city dumps produce typewriters which, falling together,
accidentally type out the Encyclopaedia Americana?
Yet these are some of the very arguments used in college classrooms today!
But why do evolutionists "take the long way around" in their guesses
about the "evolution" of whales and dolphins? Simply because, to remain
loyal to their theory, they must.
most (but by no means all) evolutionists claim life began in the sea.
(Some say it began between cracks in rocks; others say from
polka-dotted air bubbles in the sea; others from scum; others from
"soup" and still others from "slime.") Since they have generally agreed
life began in the sea, they must insist that all living forms "gradually" found their way from the sea to the land, and to the air.
But mammals, in the broad classification of vertebrates, bearing their
young alive, and suckling those young — must breathe air. Fish also
live from "air" but the air is filtered from the water through their
marvelously intricate gills.
So — in
evolutionary thought, it was necessary for these air-breathing,
live-bearing mammals of the deep to "take the long way around," so to
speak, first "evolving" into animals on the dry land, and then evolving
part way back to fish, but "keeping" their lungs and their method of
bearing their young alive, and suckling them.
The evidence for such fantastic developments?
There is none. Evolution doesn't know what kind of "animal" or which
animal of what kind of fossil remains (because there are no such
remains) to claim as the most ancient "ancestor" of these mammals of
But, they staunchly affirm their fantastic faith in such a theory, in spite of the utter lack of evidence.
Again, however, there is disagreement among evolutionists. "The
ancestors of all whales, we know by fossil remains, were land mammals"
asserted Rachel Carson, in the book, The Sea Around Us, on page 40.
"They must have been predatory beasts," continues the imaginary
assertion, "if we are to judge by their powerful jaws and teeth.
Perhaps, in their foragings about the deltas of great rivers or around
the edges of shallow seas, they discovered the abundance of fish and
other marine life and over the centuries formed the habit of following
them farther and farther into the sea."
But is this true? Did it really happen?
There is no evidence. No intermediate species. No part-land animal, and
part whale; no half-leg, half-flipper; no skeletons, no fossil
imprints, no evidence of any kind.
authority states, "No fossil remains of the land ancestor of the whale
have been discovered as yet" (Introduction to Historical Geology,
William L. Stokes, p. 419-420, emphasis mine).
Yet — in spite of missing "evidence" and no proof, evolutionists
continue clinging to their faith. Faith in nothing.
How to Breathe Through the Back of Your Head
How do whales and dolphins breathe? How do they breathe while they're
asleep? Why don't they unconsciously open their air vents, and take a
breath of seawater?
discovered the centers controlling breathing are arranged differently
in dolphins than in man and other mammals. Man is continually
surrounded by a mantle of air — so he breathes involuntarily (without
being conscious of a definite task of respiration) most of the time.
While breathing can become conscious, or voluntary — it is involuntary
most of the time.
But what about a dolphin?
It's only logical to admit that an air-breathing creature who lives in
the sea must be somehow conscious of where it is at each breath — or it
could drown! What about sleep? What about those deep dives?
Frankly, scientists admit what they do not know about whales and
dolphins is a great deal! They are not sure, for instance, how it is
whales can survive recorded dives of three quarters of a mile without
being killed. Even the most skilled "lung divers" can usually stay
underwater only 90 seconds to two minutes at best and seldom go below
140 feet. Divers breathing compressed air for an extended time below 39
feet risk paralysis and death unless "decompressed" before returning to
In attempting to explain these
marvelous feats, one scientist admitted, "The plain truth is, however,
that we really do not know [how dolphins and whales survive such deep
dives], since it is obviously impossible to confine a living whale and
experiment on it, and almost as difficult to dissect a dead one
satisfactorily" (The Sea Around Us, Rachel Carson, p. 41).
The amazing breath control of these creatures is without parallel in all the creation.
Scientists are not yet sure, but they believe the centers controlling
respiration probably are located in the cerebral cortex, instead of in
the brain stem, as in man.
If this is true —
then breathing is always a conscious and voluntary act for dolphins and
whales — and never involuntary.
experiment, a dolphin had suffered from possible anoxemia, and was
placed back in a tank. It fell onto the right side when it tried to
swim, and appeared unable to rise to the surface normally to breathe.
It uttered a short, sharp, high-pitched whistle, in two parts, with a
rising and falling pitch — heard not only audibly by observers, but
also recorded on tape.
The other two animals
in the tank swam immediately to the striken porpoise, swam under his
head, and pushed him to the surface so he could breathe. He breathed,
submerged, and then followed a twittering, whistling conversation among
They took turns swimming along the
right side of the injured animal, allowing him to press against their
bodies so he could rise to the surface and breathe!
In their subsequent interference in what the animals were doing, the
scientists discovered yet another amazing fact about dolphins. They
took the stricken animal from the tank, and tried draining water out of
its blowhole by holding its head downward at a 45-degree angle. But
they found dolphins can voluntarily blow water out of the lungs into
the mouth (but remember — their nose is in the back of their head!),
apparently able to disengage the larynx from the nasal pharynx! Until
that time, scientists had falsely assumed the air and food passages
were completely separate.
And What About Birth?
Baby dolphins are born under water — and must, within moments, take
their first breath of air, just as human babies do! But there's an
important difference! Human babies just gasp for air, iNvoluntarily,
and breathing becomes an immediate unconscious act.
But not so for baby dolphins.
As mama dolphin nudges them gently to the surface, they must somehow
automatically open and breathe through their brand-new little air vent
at just the right moment, then close it tight again, submerging to swim alongside their parent.
Immediately, they must establish perfectly the voluntary act of
breathing by opening and closing the air vent at precisely that instant
when the dorsal hump is above the surface and just barely before it
plunges below again.
A second too soon — and the baby creature would drown. A second too late, and the same thing would happen.
And baby porpoises nurse under water, too. Swimming alongside their
mothers, the little grinning creatures suckle at their mother's
specially built underwater paps, somehow managing to receive only milk,
and no salt water.
That brings to mind another amazing proclivity of the porpoises.
What Scientists Don't Know!
Scientists have wondered how porpoises drink water! Some think the
animals receive water only by eating the flesh of fish; others have
wondered if they actually swallow salt water, and somehow desalinize it
in the digestive system.
Others have wondered if it is somehow filtered into the creatures' bodies through the skin.
As a matter of fact, what is not known about dolphins is quite substantial.
Scientists do know whales and dolpins migrate. But how do they?
No one knows for sure. It is thought by some that they actually migrate
by the sun, moon and stars, somehow solving the highly complex and
difficult task of getting a spray-soaked view of distant stars through
eyes that are built more for seeing under water than out, (though a
dolphin's vision is excellent in either element) or perhaps a distorted
view of only a jew of the stars through the water.
Others suppose they may migrate depending upon depth soundings, type of
ocean bottom, ocean currents, water temperature, plankton (krill),
taste of water, or salinity.
Actually, as all this indicates, they just don't know how dolphins and whales migrate.
Scientists wonder just how intelligent dolphins are. For instance, it
has been suggested by one that dolphins have a kind of "nomadic
culture," and possibly even herd fish along with them in their travels
Since a baby dolphin is not weaned
for eighteen to twenty-one months, scientists believe the babies are
taught many things by their mothers during this time, and that their
large brains (no whale has yet been found with a brain smaller than
man's) are able to store up an amazing amount of knowledge based on the
mother's chattering, whistles, gestures, body movements and actions.
Their vision is amazing. To avoid the effect you would experience if
you looked up from a swimming pool with a face mask on (you would see
only a distorted mirror except for the area directly above your head),
dolphins stick their heads clear up out of the water, looking around in
all directions. Their vision is equally as good in the water or out.
Scientists wonder whether dolphins have a peculiarly shaped cornea —
shaped differently in the center than at the edges. They do know that
the iris has a curtain which, when illuminated in a bright light, shows
a U-shaped slit. This slit would be used in the air, but in the water
this curtain would be raised as light is reduced enabling the center of
the cornea to focus in water on the same fovea (area in eye making
acute vision possible).
Do dolphins use
muscular control on their corneas? Possibly so. The cornea could be
made to bulge and flatten alternately by muscular control along the
free edge of the cartilage shell around it — since the animal has
unusual control over the eyeball, allowing it to look upward, backward,
downward or forward.
The cornea could be,
scientists believe, a very complex water-containing bag, which, when
alternately flattening or relaxing, may be able to focus perfectly in
the two totally different media; air and water!
But they don't know for sure!
And a dolphin's skin is remarkable! Ever try to hose some dirt off a
doormat, or piece of old carpet? The effect is virtually no spray!
Scientists have found the dolphins have a remarkable many-layered skin,
part of which becomes completely watersoaked, and allows them to travel
much faster through the water. The Navy is thinking of experimenting
with skin-like coverings over the hulls of their submarines to achieve
even greater speed. Incidentally, next time you see a picture of the
blunt snout of a U. S. Navy nuclear submarine — remember: it was
designed that way when they found the blunter snout of the huge whales
is more aquadynamically sound for speed than the sharper prows of older
The Dilemma of the Doubting Dolphin
But now let's go back in time. Way, way back — beyond the wildest imaginations of even an evolutionist. Let's be sure to include enough time — so let's go back so far it's impossible to write the figure.
Remember, there had to be enough genetic mutations to produce a first
experience for some remote ancestor of the dolphins. There had to be
that first time in the history of dolphindom when some of these
creatures simply did not come back to shore again.
So let's imagine we're watching Dither, the doleful dolphin, doubtfully
deducing whether he can dive into the deep and not drown.
Dither is perplexed. His ancestors had managed, by vast genetic
mutation (or so the story would go), to exchange their legs for fins,
drop off their hair, and exchange it for a fantastically designed,
triple-layered hide that soaks up the water and increases speed; move
the nose up to the back of the head, alter the whole metabolism, diet,
bone structure, reproductive apparatus, brain size, eyes, lungs,
nervous system and voice.
Dither has somehow
managed to receive these traits in spite of the millions of tragedies
that brought him to this dubious dilemma.
see, millions of his ancestors had been drowning because their genetic
structure had not completely mutated. They became water-logged as their
hair soaked up the water and their not quite flippers (which were
really legs, with claws) couldn't propel them back to the surface
Scores more drowned in the
shallow water trying to operate their new air vents by involuntary
breathing. Millions of babies drowned, repeatedly, when they were born
underwater, and immediately sucked gallons of water through the top of
Millions of others died as they
attempted that still deeper dive after an escaping morsel of fast
yellowtail; plunging down to 750 feet, they surfaced again, only to
collapse in spasms of caisson disease, as nitrogen bubbles formed in
Actually, such creatures never existed.
Dither doesn't exist, either; since his ancestors all perished.
But let's use our imaginations with great porpoise — er, I mean, purpose!
Dither knows a great voyage is at hand. His new genes have given him
the urge. His instinct tells him he must be properly equipped to
survive in this great epic journey (he has finally decided to migrate
about 8,000 miles across the trackless seas). "Let's see, now," Dither
muses (figuratively), "compass? Maps and charts? Soundings of the ocean
depths? What about reports on plankton, and fish locations? And how
about all the vast collection of meteorological knowledge, astronomy,
and information about currents, tides, salinity, ocean taste, and how
to observe the stars through salt spray?"
But some strange evolution-dominated genetic compulsion (perhaps the
same feeling some students experience when reading similar tales in
more erudite language?) grips the dubious dolphin.
Taking a great gulp of air, he dives into the heaving deep.
Happily, he swims along, surfacing regularly for air. He has evolved a
fairly successful method of breathing now — blowing out just as he
surfaces to clear his new, behind-the-head nose, and then gasping in a
quick breath just before his lunge carries him under again.
For miles he swims. He gets very, very thirsty. After all, those last
few sardines he ate were pretty salty! Now for a drink! But — "Oh, no!"
He forgot! He always used to wander ashore for a drink of nice, fresh
water, like any self-respecting, half-dolphin,
Dither forgot that his genetic constitution wouldn't — didn't make it
possible for him to drink salt water!
squeezed his cornea, preparing it for a view out of the water; and, by
powerful sweeps of his novel new flukes, rears his head out of the
waves to have a look around.
the broad expanse of ocean. Ocean and more ocean. And all that water
and not a drop fit to drink! He hasn't yet evolved his desalinization
Frantically, he swims in
ever-widening circles. Panting, gasping for a drink of water — he
searches frequently for shore.
At last, near
exhaustion, he gulps a gallon of salt water. Then he dies, in agony, as
his freshwater stomach and freshwater body absorbs all that salt.
The same difficulties could be applied to all the amazingly complex abilities of dolphins and whales.
But let's be logical.
Could it be possible such marvelously designed, perfectly formed, amazingly complex creatures just "happened"?
Remember, somehow, somewhere, if evolution has a "leg" to stand on,
those very first "pre-dolphins" put to sea. But what about two of them
leaving at the same time? What about the convenient arrangements of the
reproductive apparatus (which we haven't even described in this
article!), and all the fantastic things you've learned about dolphins?
Remember again, that the very first migration; the very first deep
dive; the very first attempt to capture fish for a meal; the very first
use of salt water; the very first underwater birth; the very first
voluntary control of breathing — these and a myriad more fantastic
firsts all had to occur at the same time! At the very instant the first
And — from these fantastic
abilities, do scientists see great thought and planning? Do they
observe great design and intricate creation? Do they stand in awe of
the great mind it took to produce and put into action such huge
Not at all. They see only the
creature — not the Creator. They see only the material creation — not
its Producer, Designer, Sustainer, and Ruler!
But when God wanted to humble a man, Job, He pointed out the awesome
powers of the great monsters of the deep — and asked Job to compare
himself with the great creation of God! When Job saw these creatures,
he abhorred himself — and repented in dust and ashes! He finally saw
the great God who had designed, created and produced all life — and
came to see himself in utter, futile, worthless comparison to God,
instead of in comparison with other men.
But, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to convince some people.
So, let's try again.
Whales and dolphins are certainly unusual mammals. But there is an even
more enigmatic mammal found in Australia. And he virtually stuns
The Unbelievable Platypus
"Bizarre!" "Monstrous Misfit!" "Unbelievable!" "An impossible patchwork
creature!" say evolutionists of the duckbill platypus.
Such are the shocked explicatives evolutionists use when trying to
describe and explain one of the "strangest" creatures alive today — the
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."
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 flat, 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!
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
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.
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 scepticism
is not only pardonable, but laudable; and I ought perhaps to
acknowledge that I almost doubt the testimony of my own eyes." (Quoted
in The Platypus, Harry Burrell, pages 17, 19 — a few words slightly
changed to bring language up to date.)
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
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
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 furore 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 outrageous but genuine!" (Marvels and Mysteries of Our Animal
World, Reader's Digest Publication, page 82.)
Who's Mixed Up?
Why do zoologists, taxonomists, and other scientists express such
incredulity at the platypus? Why are they left gasping in disbelief
when they list out the parts of a platypus?
Strangely, the platypus isn't bothered by his "patchwork" appearance.
He goes right on living — and reproducing.
The answer is that the platypus tears apart a patchwork theory — the theory of evolution!
Most of the theory of evolution is based on comparison. Evolutionists
compare one creature with another in an attempt to construct a family
Of course, as we all should know,
comparison is just another form of analogy. And analogies prove NOTHING
of themselves. They can only add explanation to something already
But the platypus disrupts the
evolutionist's neatly laid out family trees. (More of this later!) But
now, let's read and analyze some of these incredulous statements made
"Every writer upon the
platypus begins with an expression of wonder. Never was there such a
disconcerting animal! This wonder finds a very curious expression in
the determined efforts made to retain Blumenbach's name paradoxus,
against all the rules of zoological nomenclature." (The Platypus, Harry
Burrell, page 6.)
From the National
Geographic article, "Australia's Patchwork Creature" by Charles H.
Holmes, page 273, "An impossible patchwork creature it seemed, equally
at home in the water or on the land, boasting something of fish, fowl,
beast, and reptile and richly deserving the name it was given at first,
Ornithorhynchus paradoxus, or bird-bill paradox."
But why should the platypus appear as a paradox? It seems to survive
pretty well. It doesn't feel like a patchwork animal. As a matter of
fact, a platypus is rather a cute creature.
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
"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 [are] 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.
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 "family trees" — pictures of various
"simple" life forms, followed by crustaceans, jellyfish and the like,
branching off into 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? As we have already mentioned,
an analogy is not proof. It merely makes clear what is already proven
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 "Platywhatever"
Based on the evolutionary demands for "gradual" genetic 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 "platywhatever" — a product of hundreds upon hundreds
of generations of new innovations. 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, his genetic combinations have caused him to be somewhere in
between, or under, or somewhere around one or the other of these
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, his genes have only produced claws 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
But if that's true, then why
would genes mutate for retractable webbed feet, and allow him to swim
only with his forefeet, dragging the hind feet rather uselessly along
But if evolution is caused by
undirected genetic mutation sifted by blind natural selection — why is
there purpose and design to every aspect of the platypus? Evolutionists
are between a "rock and a hard place."
But, now, back to our story.
The hungry "platywhatever" pauses by the side of the stream. Formerly
his ancestors were accustomed to eating various tiny animals, or
plants, or whatever may have suited their particular fancy.
But newly mutated genes cause a new "thought" to enter his mind. He decides 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
If this first "platywhatever" 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. (Whew!)
Success or Death
It should be obvious to any thinking person that the very first time
genes produced the instinct to feed along the bottom of streams, one of
two things would have happened. 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
"platywhatever" instead of a "platypus." Or, secondly, an empty stomach
and complete frustration, leading him to evolve into something else.
But our story has more chapters.
This "platywhatever" dives into the water. But — alas! He hasn't
developed genes for swimming. His hair has not had the benefit of
water-resistant mutated genes. 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,
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 — and of course, would require
hundreds of thousands of years to develop a new genetic makeup. (At
least, not as a platypus. And if he's equipped to survive as a
something else — then why didn't he??)
say, after a few hundred thousand years the first fully mutated
"platywhatever" 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 odd beak???
Evolution the Hard Way
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 evolving 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 their genetic makeup mutated they became more adept at finding food
underwater, just naturally passed on these genetically "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!
biologists, and a host of other specialists (the majority of whom are
believers in some form of evolution), believe mammals developed from
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
Mammals From Reptiles
Most zoologists, taxonomists, biologists don't believe mammals were
created by God. They think mammals came from reptiles.
The fact that there are around 3200 differing species doesn't bother
them at all. The fact that they range in size from the shrew (weight:
two fifths of an ounce dripping wet) to the 130 ton whale makes no
difference to them.
But how and why do they
conclude that mammals in general, and the platypus in particular
evolved from reptiles?
Perhaps you didn't know this. But here's how evolutionists reason.
"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.
any rate, it is a highly specialized survivor of an ancient time."
(Evolution, Life Nature Library, p. 61.)
Another publication echoes the same idea:
"The monotremes, including the duck-billed platypus ... are
transitional creatures with both reptilian and mammalian
characteristics." (The Wonders of Life on Earth, Editors of Life, p.
A third book tells us the same thing:
"They [the platypuses] are not so close to the birds as they are to the
reptiles, from which they are descended. We consider them the most
primitive of living mammals... all in all, they are strangely fashioned
creatures, living symbols of the old and the new in the animal
kingdom." (The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Animal Life, Vol. 1,
Frederick Drimmer, Editor-in-Chief, p. 25.)
The idea is advanced that a platypus is a transitional creature. Why is
it considered so? Because, supposedly, it has both reptilian and
In other words, the less
a mammal supposedly looks like a reptile, the more it has evolved.
Since the platypus is considered to have many reptilian features,
scientists say, "We consider them primitive creatures!"
But let's stop a minute and analyze this idea.
Is a Comparison Proof?
Almost every "proof" of evolution is based on comparison. At one time
comparative embryology was the big proof. Today, it's generally not in
vogue to cite it as proof.
Too many problems have developed for evolution.
Today, comparative genetics and comparative blood characteristics are cited as "proof" of evolution.
The supposed evolutionary history of the horse is based on comparing
the teeth, feet and vertebrae of various fossils. This is part of the
system of comparative anatomy.
But what does it really prove?
Nothing, by itself. All it might do is lend support to something already proved!
We have to cite a ludicrous example, but it demonstrates the point.
Today, New York City has huge skyscrapers with modern offices. These
are filled with ultramodern dictating machines, typewriters, computers.
At the same time, there are very primitive tribes using stone tools in
If an archaeologist of 3,000 A.D.
were to dig up both cultures — without knowing the facts — he would
claim the New York City culture came centuries after the African one.
But they are both contemporary.
In the same way, we see 50-story modern skyscrapers and one-story
ramshackle huts — in the same town. But to say one evolved from the
other is foolish. We might say, "Why this is the science which we call
comparative house development."
But we know houses don't evolve by themselves. They are thought-out and planned by intelligent architects.
Obviously, we don't see the platypus evolving today. He's quite content to stay where he is.
Where could we find evidence, then, that the platypus evolved?
In just one place, the fossil record.
But here is where the scientists begin to excuse themselves.
How Evolutionists Reason
Let's take a classic example, of how evolutionists reason. They present
— and ask you to believe — that fantastic changes occurred. These are
presented positively, scientifically. There is no hesitation.
But, then, a few pages later — when we seek for proof in the fossil record (the only place we can find it) — we get evasive answers.
Here's one example.
"The monotremes [the platypus and spiny anteater], however, still show
reptilian features of bone structure in their hip and shoulder regions.
Their legs are stubby like those of the early reptiles but, instead of
sprawling out to the side, they are drawn in more under the body."
The quote continues — and get this.
"Two large bones in the hinge of the reptilian jaw have SHRUNK
MARVELOUSLY in mammals and MOVED BACK into the head to become the tiny
'hammer' and 'anvil' bones which transmit vibrations to the inner ear."
Now, that's really something to bowl you over. "Fine," we say, "I'm not
disagreeable, I've seen a lot of strange things. Prove to me this
happened. Show me the fossil record."
Now, when you read such statements in books you ought to question in this manner yourself.
Can this author show us the fossil record with these startling changes?
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
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 [which includes 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,
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).
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).
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, Lifegiver never occurs to the
evolutionist. Or, if it does occur to him — it is quickly discarded.
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."
words, the platypus, along with the cockroaches, cycads, and the now
famous coela-canth, 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
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! They shouldn't have continued to exist — but they do.
Of course, the evolutionist weakly tries 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 also lives in the United
States. 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
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.
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 permitted 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).
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 Heales-ville, at least two of
the egg-laying furred mammals continue publicly to defeat time and
refute evolution, while putting on a daily act for visitors...
matinees, daily, 2-4:30 p.m." (Walkabout, "He's Just an Old Fossil,"
Kendrick Howard, page 15, May, 1967.)
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.
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
In that case, the platypus is one more of the strong proofs that evolution did not take place.
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.
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."
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
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
"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).
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
How do you square that with evolution?
And evolutionists admit you can't.
"Many zoologists believe that since pre-mammal 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 beaverlike 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 Platypus Bill
No article on the platypus would be complete without briefly discussing the marvelous platypus bill.
The bill of the platypus is one of the most sensitive organs known. It
is used in place of eyes when he hunts for food.
As the platypus dives into the water, he draws a layer of skin over both eyes and ears.
In the water, a platypus swings his bill from right to left.
Apparently, he is able to find small water dwellers by their
vibrations. Coupled with this is a magnificent sense of touch.
The platypus also seems to have an astounding awareness of cavities in
the earth ahead. He can avoid breaking into rat holes, other platypus
tunnels and even rabbit holes.
All this is
done deep within the earth where the platypus' eyes are of no value.
The platypus can sense all this with his bill. Truly, the platypus'
bill is one of the most remarkable pieces of radar on earth.
But the platypus also uses his bill for more mundane tasks.
The female uses her bill as a shovel when digging a burrow. As she
digs, the soil that is dug out is tamped into the sides or the bottom
by the bill.
Also, when the platypus swims,
it uses its bill, which is pliable as rubber, to cut through the water
like the prow of a boat.
The Proof of Creation
Every part of the platypus takes its place in a coordinated function
that makes the platypus one of the many awe-inspiring creatures we see
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
The platypus is one of God's
roadblocks that warns theorists, "Watch your ideas, you're heading down
a blind alley!" Unfortunately, too many have not heeded that warning.
But those who have the wit to see ought to be able to understand from
the creation that God does exist. We should exclaim with David, "O
Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom has 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.
[Editor's Note: For further proof that God is the Creator of all life,
write for the following free literature: "Worldwide Mammal Massacre,"
"The Missing Link .. . Found!," and Does God Exist?]
You live in a world of law and order. The living plants, the life
cycles, 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.