It's so easy to read the jargon and make assumptions about a lot of things from science literature, but when you observe these things with your own eyes it has to become more difficult for anyone with a modicum of intelligence, to suggest no intelligent direction is evident in the construction.
This is one of the reasons that peer-review and self-correcting mechanisms such as those applied during the course of scientific inquiry are so important. Human beings have a tendency to seek out patterns in our environment as a means of detecting potential dangers and making sense of our world. It’s the reason we see animals in the clouds or faces in our French toast. And it can lead us into believing false things about what is going on around us.
I defy anyone to prove that these are not all the product of directed intelligence, not blind chance.
You claim that all life on earth was designed by some intelligent designer.
I don’t see good reason to believe that.
I’m not making any claim. You are. So you get to prove your claim, not the other way around.
Now lets examine your cited references.....
"While we've always been able to compare and consider all of these creatures on the basis of their physical characteristics, internal anatomy and behavior, it's truly amazing to be able to compare their genetic blueprints and begin to get a close-up look at how evolution brings about change," Wilson says......
Sequencing and assembling the platypus genome proved far more daunting than sequencing any other mammalian genome to date. About 50 percent of the genome is composed of repetitive elements of DNA, which makes it a challenge to assemble properly."
I’m not sure why you’ve highlighted this particular portion. Perhaps you could elaborate.
What I find interesting about this article is that when they sequenced the platypus’ genome, researchers found that the platypus shares 82% of its genes with humans, mice, dogs, oppossums and chickens, which indicates that they are evolutionarily related. They also found genes that support egg laying and lactation which are found in all mammals. They can account for all the various odd features that make a platypus by analysing its DNA and comparing it to that of other animals, which allows them to
“date the emergence of genes and traits specific to mammals.”
This quote taken from the article, attributed to the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (who is also a Christian) speaks to this point, and the one I was making above:
“"At first glance, the platypus appears as if it was the result of an evolutionary accident," says Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of NHGRI. "But as weird as this animal looks, its genome sequence is priceless for understanding how mammalian biological processes evolved."
"The observed loss of genes involved in gastric functions might be responsible for the anatomical and physiological differences in gastrointestinal tract between monotremes and other vertebrates, including small size, lack of glands, and high pH of the monotreme stomach. This study contributes to a better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the evolution of the platypus genome, might extend the less-is-more evolutionary model to monotremes, and provides novel insights into the importance of gene loss events during mammalian evolution."
This of course, "assumes" that the gastric function of a platypus was modeled after some pre-existing creature that may have preceded it.
It doesn’t need to make that assumption. The researchers
demonstrate via detailed analysis and comparison of the genomes of human, dog, opossum, frog, chicken and lizard, that specific genes have been inactivated or deleted in the platypus and echidna genomes. Read the section titled: “Loss or inactivation of platypus genes implicated in stomach acid secretion.”
Do we have evidence for any creature that this mysterious mammal may have "evolved" from? It has the bill and webbed feet of a duck, the fur and tail of a beaver, it suckles its young with milk and it lays eggs and has venomous spurs......seriously.....where is the evidence that this creature evolved from anything pre-existing? Attempts to explain it become comical.
The evidence of this creature evolving from pre-existing creatures is contained in the articles I have cited.
Is your assertion that some intelligent designer just popped it into existence one day? Can you demonstrate that? Did this designer intentionally create the platypus sharing 82% of its genes with humans, dogs, opposums, mice and chickens, which seems to indicate that it is a product of evolution, or was that just a happy accident? Maybe it was trickery.
"Only two kinds of egg-laying mammals are left on the planet today—the duck-billed platypus and the echidna, or spiny anteater. These odd “monotremes” once dominated Australia, until their pouch-bearing cousins, the marsupials, invaded the land down under 71 million to 54 million years ago and swept them away. New research suggests these two kinds of creatures managed to survive because their ancestors took to the water....
Phillips and his colleagues suggest that platypuses and echidnas made it through the marsupial invasion because their ancestors sought refuge where marsupials could not follow—the water. When marsupials are born, they need to constantly suckle milk for weeks, and as such, newborns could drown if their mothers ever had to swim for long.
The theory seems plausible for platypuses, which are amphibious creatures. Echidnas, however, dwell solely on land."
Oops. There goes the theory....and again we see the power of suggestion....but no real proof of anything they "suggest".
Instead of stopping there, you should have continued to the very next sentence which is, “The investigators used genetics to come up with the answer. They found that echidnas diverged from platypuses only 19 million to 48 million years ago, meaning that echidnas recently had semiaquatic ancestors and only later recolonized the land. A number of features of echidna indicate that they may have once had an amphibious platypuslike forerunner – streamlined bodies, rearward-projecting hind limbs that could serve as rudders, and the contours of a ducklike bill during embryonic development.”
And from the study itself:
“The 61 Ma
Monotrematum is the oldest known Tertiary monotreme, with teeth and femora very similar to those of undoubted fossil and living platypuses. The mid-Tertiary origin for crown monotremes inferred in all of our molecular analyses indicates that
Monotrematum is a late stem monotreme, and thus that the immediate ancestors of living monotremes already exhibited a platypus-like morphology (
9–
11,
56). Therefore, echidnas essentially would be derived, terrestrial platypuses. Compelling evidence for secondary derivation of terrestrial habits from semiaquatic ancestors has been offered previously only for the evolution of elephants (
57).
A number of aspects of echidna biology are consistent with an origin from a platypus-like ancestor with such traits as aquadynamic streamlining (
58), dorsally projecting hind limbs acting as rudders (
59), and locomotion founded on hypertrophied humeral long-axis rotation, which provides a very efficient swimming stroke (
60). In echidnas, traits that are potentially homologous with these are dorso-ventral compression, reversed hind-foot posture, and “front-wheel drive” locomotion based on humeral long-axis rotation. Each of these traits would be highly anomalous if derived directly from a more generalized terrestrial insectivore morphotype (typical of basal mammals). The embryologic presence in echidnas of the marginal cartilage that contours the bill of platypuses (
58) similarly suggests that a bill (rather than a beak or snout) is ancestral for crown monotremes. Other features of echidnas also suggest a substantial, relatively recent ecological shift. Despite now lacking teeth, relaxation of selection has yet to result in degraded sequences for the tooth matrix protein amelogenin (
61). Similarly, the ankle spurs, which are venomous only in platypuses, are retained in many echidnas, despite their derived hind-limb morphology that ensures that they are nonfunctional (
54). Finally, the absence of echidna-like fossils before 13 Ma is consistent with mid-Tertiary origins.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/40/17089.full
These aren’t just random, unsubstantiated claims being thrown off the top of someone’s head, as you seem to suggest. They are actually based on extensive research and the accumulation of evidence that points to certain conclusions.
It’s evident that you’d just like to declare that you think things look designed and so they must be. But scientists don’t get to do that – they actually have to demonstrate the veracity of their claims.
"This study represents a step towards fully characterizing the first mammal venom transcriptome.
We have found similarities between putative platypus toxins and those of a number of unrelated species, providing insight into the evolution of mammalian venom."
What "insight" has this provided, exactly?
It gives us potentially better insight into the details of evolution that pertain to the platypus.
“Our searches identified 88 putative platypus venom genes, 83 of which have not been previously identified (OvDLPs, OvNGF and OvCNPs, known to be expressed in platypus venom, were also found in the transcriptome data). It is now clear that the venom of the platypus contains a diverse range of proteins, many of which may be functional analogues of venom components of other species, including reptiles, insectivores, fish, and even invertebrates. Reptiles diverged from the vertebrate lineage 315 million years ago, and platypuses diverged from the rest of the mammals 166 million years ago [
5]. The fact that these extremely divergent species share similar venom components, some of which were found repeatedly in platypus and other venoms, suggests that there are indeed protein motifs that are preferentially selected for independent evolution to venom molecules in a striking display of convergent evolution, and that many animal venoms share some similarities in their mode of action [
27].”
