Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

The platypus being used as an example against evolution is probably one the most common creationist strawman... well, apparently not that common... But anyway, don't be fooled by those evil creationists.Before I begin, here are a few things to clear up for those that are not familiar with evolution.Mammals did not evolve from birds. They evolved from reptiles, like mammals. The fossil evidence for the mammal-like reptiles is, like all fossil evidence, compelling evidence of this gradual change.All proto mammals (early mammals) lay eggs; the platypus along with the echidnas all lay eggs. They are all are mammals. They didn't evolve from a live bearing animal to an egg layer, they just never stopped being egg layers.The platypus absolutely do not have a duck bill. They have a wide mouth with a leathery skin that bears a resemblance to a duck's bill. The appearance is an example of convergent evolution: They are primarily an aquatic animal that hunts for prey in the muck in the bottom of streams. Other than the superficial appearance, the teeth, etc. are all very much mammalian.There's nothing puzzling at all about the platypus. It's a primitive mammal with a very narrow niche living in the wonderful evolutionary cooking pot that Australia represents. Rather than look at the platypus and try and say it looks like an enigma, you should have been looking at the marsupials in Australia.Australia became geographically isolated very early on in the evolution of mammals so you wound up with some primitive orders like the platypus and early marsupial mammals.So, do not fall into the creationist trap by accepting that the platypus is an enigma. It's clearly not!

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Depends on what one refers to as "predictive power". Evolution of a population is steered by external as well as internal forces. It's possible to give certain predictions if we are working in a laboratory and we have control of every single condition that works to select the individuals. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends on how you look at it), nature hardly ever works like a laboratory that we know of. It's a much bigger laboratory than any we possess, which makes it impossible for us to account for every possible thing that works to promote evolution.So, I really don't see how we can ever predict outcomes accurately and dependably in the near future.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!