Hi, ICANT.
You've always struck me as a decent and honest person.
But, these answers you gave me don't seem very honest. It seems like you know the conclusion that I want you to arrive at, and you're deliberately choosing the answers to the questions that will prevent you from arriving at that conclusion. Give it some honest consideration!
ICANT writes:
In fact isn't all our physical problems caused by a mutation?
We don't have to talk about beneficial and deleterious mutations right now: we only have to talk about whether or not the differences between those hominid skulls are consistent with mutations.
-----
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that physical changes often accompany mutations?
I sure do. At one time I could bench press 400 lbs. Now I have a problem with a hundred lb sack of salt.
Okay, this is probably not a mutation.
-----
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that reproductive isolation would allow different sets of mutations and accompanying physical changes to accumulate over time?
Sure it is possible. But if the DNA is the same to begin with they could end up with the same sets of mutations regardless of their location.
The possibility of this happening is so low that we might as well regard it as impossible.
-----
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that the hominid skulls in that picture you've been talking about display physical changes that could be related to mutations?
Sure they could be related to mutations.
They could also be related to different beginnings of different creatures.
Sure, they could. But, given how broadly similar they are, and how well they seem to transition from one skull to the next, does it really seem reasonable to conclude that they are completely unrelated?
Also, none of them has a beginning that lines up with your timeline, so do you think it would help your argument much even if it were true?
-----
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you accept that this would be evolution?
I think I would call it the opposite of evolution as it seems that when enough time has passed everything becomes extinct. A fact that has accelerated since modern man appeared on Earth.
This is why I think your answers are dishonest. You didn't really answer the question: you just made a generic comment about your opinion about evolution, that includes some extraneous information that isn't really related to the topic.
Let me ask again: if the differences between the hominid skulls in that picture upthread can be traced to mutations, would you accept that these differences would represent evolution?
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.