[DittoJed2]

What makes sense is that mutations tend to have their limits. You can make a wholphin through genetic manipulation but you can not make a "felineolphin" (I know that is an extreme but we are talking kind to kind here). Dogs are limited to mutations within the dog family. Cats within the cat family. Horses within the horse family. This is observable science.

Even if you may end up with some freakish specimin that looks like a sphinx (head of a human body of an animal) or something, getting that freak to procreate and spread the deformity throughout the species until it indeed takes off on its own is an entirely different thing. First, you'd have to get another specimin with the same genetics. Even with some intermarriage, the "blue people" of Appalachia stopped being blue and the mutant gene faded away. Second, You don't have a part ape mating with a human being I don't care what their visual similarities are. Talk about a problem worse than where Cain got his wife from! Ya'll propose that some human somewhere had offspring with a part-ape.

[VadeRetro]

Ya'll propose that some human somewhere had offspring with a part-ape.

Where did we-all do that? Part ape and part what? And when did we-all say that happened?

This isn't some kind of a strawman argument, is it? Not saying it is, but tell me it isn't!

[PatrickHenry]

What makes sense is that mutations tend to have their limits.

Yes, they do. But only in the sense that the mutated offspring of a particular creature can't be all that different from the parent. Quite so. Micro-evolution. But when that process is continued over thousands and millions of generations, those little changes can add up to be a considerable difference. Again, what conceivable mechanism (except extinction) would intervene to prevent this from happening?