Dingo Dilemma for Darwinists

Time to saddle up and take a ride down Australia way. See that dog over there? Sure does look like a dog, but you had best leave it well alone, and keep it away from young children. That is the dingo, the wild dog of Australia. 

Who's a good doggie? No way! Think of it more like a wolf.
Credit: cropped from Pixabay / Michelle Maria

While they have a strong resemblance to dogs and can interbreed with them, dingoes have distinct differences and are unique to Australia. They are classified as placental mammals, and 'Straya is littered with marsupials. Meanwhile, the opposite is the case in other parts of the world where placental mammals outnumber marsupials (apparently, the opossum is the only marsupial here in North America). Dingoes are also troubling for evolution. 

Darwin's handmaidens are content to evosplain the dingo's existence with assertions, but have nothing plausible to offer. They are clearly of the biblical dog kind (or possibly even a separate but related kind), and the fossil record supports this fact.

Dingoes look like dogs, but evolutionists say they are not. Pat Shipman writes, “Without question, most people from outside Australia first see a dingo and think, as I did, ‘That’s a dog.’” A dingo looks like a dog, acts like a dog, and runs like a dog. But is not a dog – or so says Pat Lee Shipman in his American Scientist magazine’s cover story, “The Elusive Dingo.” What is it, then, and why is it one of the few placental mammals on a continent full of marsupials?

When Charles Darwin visited Australia in 1836, he saw first-hand the ambiguity of the dingo’s origin. He wrote in 1868 the following, which expresses his instant confusion about this animal’s origin:

You can read the rest at "The Dingo Enigma". Also, you may be interested in a post about how they can be problems, "And Dingo Was His Name-o". The video that follows informs us of trial by media, massive incompetence and injustice, argument from presuppositions — and exoneration.