When I was young I read a thing about the limitations of science. It said basically "Hey, look at the platypus! Evolution can't explain that!" and at the time it really seemed like the weird Aussie river creature didn't fit into any of the nice neat evolutionary boxes. It has hair, but it lays eggs. Not a bird, not a mammal, not a fish, what the hell is it?

So someone used the example of the platypus to poke holes in a well-established scientific theory. People who have a strong desire to prove Darwin wrong will claim that the platypus conundrum is all they need. Sorry. No dice.

Later I learned zoology's simple logical explanation of how the platypus evolved to possess such exquisite weirdness, but even if it stayed an inexplicable exception to the rule, that still doesn't prove evolution wrong. The evidence for evolution as the origin of species is overwhelming. It would take a massive groundbreaking paradigm shift to get people to rethink that. One goofy critter doesn't seem to fit the pattern is nowhere near proof that Anti-Evolution Theory is true.

It's exactly the same with flat-earthers who say "yeah, well physics has this weird paradox". True or not there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round. Poking a few holes in a few things people believe is very far from proving the earth is flat.