Don't read about monotremes -- read about the platypus.
I don't believe that monotremes is any other than a newly devised "classification" -- a weak attempt by Darwinists to force fit species which won't "fit the rule" into some niche which previously never existed because of the fact that these creatures simply defy classification according to the Laws of Evolution.
What are you talking about? Why is classification system without monotremes a gospel, but with it you have a problem? The classification schema is simply a way to categorize the species that have been found. Why can't there be an exceptional category with unique characteristics. This does Not disprove the massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution.
The platypus has a duck's bill, webbed feet, a tail like a beaver, has legs attached to the sides of its body like a reptile. It lays eggs, but feeds its young with milk like a mammal, has receptors on its head which can detect electromagnetic bio-waves released by other animals, and has venomous spines on its rear feet for stinging prey and predators. It has no teeth, but grinds its food using rocks it picks up from the bottoms of streams.
So what.
In other words, it appears to be totally unique, and evolved from no other species into its present form.
This is your own interpretation, but this is not correct nor do I have any reason to believe you've made the correct interpretation of this data. Why did they not evolve from any other species? Even with many current species that fit into the basic classifications ie mammals etc they have not catalogued every single developmental ancestor. When species die out, you are not necessarily going to find their remnants unless you dig up every inch of the earth, but then where will we all live?
Some species come and go, develop and die out, and we never hear from them again, and many of them we don't even have fossils or haven't yet uncovered them in the ground. That takes nothing away from the concept of evolution.
But your premise doesn't make sense. There is such a concept, even within the basic classification system, of convergent evolution, vestigial organs, divergent evolution, homologous structures etc. I fail to see how you raise a challenge to the concept of evolution by saying an organism is unique. In truth, they are all unique. Thus they are classified into separate species.
The actual existence of a scientific classification called "monotremes" is a mere hypothetical construct -- unproven, and without any known links which could place the platypus and anteater in the Theory of Evolution.
We have to know every single linkage and every single event that took place in order to know that evolution occurred? That's ridiculous. Why use the platypus? Simply cite that they haven't found EXACT transitional species for every single evolutionary development, or say that they found some but there are others they didn't find, and you're making the same (very weak) point. But this point is not a shock to scientists who already have abandoned the model of "Darwinian Evolution" for "Punctuated Equilibrium" which upon digging up many findings and much data to compare with Darwin's theories and speculations, have found to fit better with a concept of Punctuated Equilibrium than with "Darwinian" format. Nobody ever made Darwin into a "God" of science because he postulated something. His hypotheses were weighed against the facts uncovered by people doing the digging with the developed technology necessary for the work, and they determined that what would be an accepted hypothesis had to be altered in order to make more sense in light of what was actually found. That is the process of science. Nobody has to accept something as dogma without proof behind it. If there is a better theory and more plausible way of explanation, the scientists adopt that. That is the reason Punctuated Equilibrium was adopted. In my opinion this makes even more reason to believe that God is ultimately behind the process of evolution. The Darwinian model is more like an "Oven-timer" format whereby you "set it and forget it" and things gradually progress naturally to a given conclusion based on environment. Punctuated equilibrium requires massive upheavels and dynamic catastrophic events which catapult the process between various stages of basic "plateau." I can't force someone to see God's hand in that, but I don't see why it can't be accepted by someone who does believe in God.
1
In addition, rarely a week goes by without scientists announcing the "discovery' of entirely new species of animals in Borneo, South American rainforests, etc...
2
If this be the case, then their standardized progression of the origin of species is totally without merit, because none of these new species can be accounted for in terms of from which other animals they did evolve.
I don't see how you concluded 2 from 1. What do you mean they 'can't be accounted for?'
What these "scientists" are in fact doing is first declaring their unchallengeable Theory of Evolution, refusing to allow anyone to question it or challenge it.
Actually one can challenge it based on scientific evidence and solid empirical data. What they don't allow, just like all scientific fields, is for one to challenge a theory based on belief, conjecture, unfounded hypotheses, concocted "svarot" (meaning logical conjecture) etc. Data is what caused the Darwinian model to be rejected for something more accurate. Data is what determines whether something is a real challenge or simply someone whistling into the wind.
And then, as the actual facts present themselves which can not be "fit" into the puzzle, they simply "change the rules" and invent new hitherto unknown classifications in order to make everything "fit" their protocol.
Their "protocol" never said classification was limited only to what we "currently know" or "have currently found." New pieces of information add detail and depth to the classification sytem and more knowledge about historical change. New information does not undermine anything because the system itself was never built on the premise that there can be no outside information or no data that we have not yet determined or arrived at.
Poll
Topic: What is your opinion on evolution? (Read 12802 times)