Beesucker, do you realise that the bill of a platypus has nothing to do with the beak of a bird? This species evolved in the geographical isolation of Australia in a fairly recent time period, therefore is a result of evolution and is definately not an ancestor of terrestrial species.
wow you guys are crazy to believe that thing evolve so drastically. the thing is a frickin fish where are the legs where are the lungs. how about the skin. what possible gain would this species hav by going on land. if it was food, then it could adapt to eat algea or what ever. think of the panda it is going extinct it is not evolving. the tiny owls are dieing they are not evolving. comon think before you speak. Evolution is a religion based on hypothesis. same with any religion there are always hypotheses that cannot be proven. Here is what you should do…take a deep breath get up from your computer and worry about something better than whether or not a fish has an mammal characteristic. here is a word of advice before someone else responds to this page: if you cannot prove something with evidence (not a broken fossil) then you do not have an argument. and if this was truly a transition species there would be more than one i assure you. One more point why are humans not evolving if it has been so long…we should be imortal by now wouldnt you say lol peace out and hav fun with this. i woulnt say you hav to take me seriously…but at least take my argument into consideration.
Jeremy Christensen said,
04.10.06 at 9:53 am
I belive this is a mammal who came to land from a fish. The end
Jeremy Christensen said,
04.10.06 at 9:53 am
A fish transvestite
beesucker said,
04.10.06 at 11:21 am
Jeremy, I think this is a fish with mamal characteristics. Does that mean that birds and mamals evoloved from a duck-bill-platypus?
beck said,
10.22.07 at 12:02 am
Beesucker, do you realise that the bill of a platypus has nothing to do with the beak of a bird? This species evolved in the geographical isolation of Australia in a fairly recent time period, therefore is a result of evolution and is definately not an ancestor of terrestrial species.
birds evolved from reptiles
que quiere decir? said,
03.13.08 at 6:24 pm
wow you guys are crazy to believe that thing evolve so drastically. the thing is a frickin fish where are the legs where are the lungs. how about the skin. what possible gain would this species hav by going on land. if it was food, then it could adapt to eat algea or what ever. think of the panda it is going extinct it is not evolving. the tiny owls are dieing they are not evolving. comon think before you speak. Evolution is a religion based on hypothesis. same with any religion there are always hypotheses that cannot be proven. Here is what you should do…take a deep breath get up from your computer and worry about something better than whether or not a fish has an mammal characteristic. here is a word of advice before someone else responds to this page: if you cannot prove something with evidence (not a broken fossil) then you do not have an argument. and if this was truly a transition species there would be more than one i assure you. One more point why are humans not evolving if it has been so long…we should be imortal by now wouldnt you say lol peace out and hav fun with this. i woulnt say you hav to take me seriously…but at least take my argument into consideration.