So they don't even agree with their own talking points. Someone may have called the platypus "degenerate," but all it means is that is has acquired too many cute specializations. The fossil monotremes tend to be described as more generalized as you go back in time. The platypus has run up a few evolutionary blind alleys and now has very few places it can live.
I guess it's hardly your fault if ICR can't even keep its own talking points straight. (Are you really so screwed up you think this is going to replace mainstream science?)
"The fossil monotremes tend to be described as more generalized as you go back in time." -VadeRetro post 302
"Someone may have called the platypus "degenerate," but all it means is that is has acquired too many cute specializations." -VadeRetro post 302
If you want to call loss of teeth a "cute specialization" instead of a generalization, ok. To me, it's just another case of loss of functionality, that evolutionists insist are examples of added functionality.
And it looks to me that it's your talking points that are in disarray. That and the false talking points you keep wanting to ascribe to Creationists, like significant differences aren't suppose to occur. Degenerative differences and speciation within original genetic potential are part of creationist theory.
I notice you don't have any comments on the fact that evolutionists were wrong about marsupials developing in isolation in austrailia. All that ridicule that Creationist's have endured from evolutionists on how did the marsupials get to Austrailia and only Austrailia, as if that proved anything, just flew back in your faces.
"The fossil monotremes tend to be described as more generalized as you go back in time." -VadeRetro post 302
"Someone may have called the platypus "degenerate," but all it means is that is has acquired too many cute specializations." -VadeRetro post 302
If you want to call loss of teeth a "cute specialization" instead of a DE-generation, ok. To me, it's just another case of loss of functionality, that evolutionists insist are examples of added functionality.
And it looks to me that it's your talking points that are in disarray. That and the false talking points you keep wanting to ascribe to Creationists, like significant differences aren't suppose to occur. Degenerative differences and speciation within original genetic potential are part of creationist theory.
I notice you don't have any comments on the fact that evolutionists were wrong about marsupials developing in isolation in austrailia. All that ridicule that Creationist's have endured from evolutionists on how did the marsupials get to Austrailia and only Austrailia, as if that proved anything, just flew back in your faces.