[CharlesWayneCT]

Evolution would suggest that animals could exist without skulls or heads. I guess creationists know that God designed animals with heads, but with all the varied evolutionary paths, you'd think that some animal would have a brain in his butt and not need a skull.

The real point being that it isn't just SKULLS that evolutionists simply assume, and therefore would be shocked not to find. I'm sorry I forgot my audience.

[RunningWolf]

touche bump

LOL

[ahayes]

Evolution would suggest that animals could exist without skulls or heads.

If you don't understand that the theory of evolution would not suggest the existence of vertebrates without heads, perhaps you should go study the topic more before trying to talk about it.

[Liberal Classic]

Evolution would suggest that animals could exist without skulls or heads.

This is a brainless post.

[Dimensio]

Evolution would suggest that animals could exist without skulls or heads.

Why would the theory of evolution suggest this?

[b_sharp]

"Evolution would suggest that animals could exist without skulls or heads. I guess creationists know that God designed animals with heads, but with all the varied evolutionary paths, you'd think that some animal would have a brain in his butt and not need a skull."

Not that this isn't the case (given a sufficiently broad definition of butt and brain) but surely you are aware that evolution can only work with what it has. Chordates started with their nerve bundle towards one end and that became the pattern for what came after.

Creating a straw man such as you have done really does nothing for either side of the argument.