(April 10, 2016 at 12:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think your argument is crumbling, AAA.  Sorry.  Positive evidence is a bitch of a thing, isn't it?

There can't even be any positive evidence until there is a well-defined claim. Eight million pages and we still don't have that. Just pointing at apparent shortcomings in the Evolution Racer™ while Design Turbo™ is nowhere to be seen. It hasn't even been established that Design Turbo exists, or if it does, that it goes faster than a push bike; let alone the ER.

(April 10, 2016 at 11:58 am)AAA Wrote: If the shark brain was on the path to the mammalian brain, then why has it not changed in so many millions of years?

Your problem is that you do not understand evolution because you are unwilling or simply incapable of comprehending the concept. The emergence of a new species does not dictate the extinction of the predecessor.

(April 10, 2016 at 11:58 am)AAA Wrote: We don't have either of those two classes. Why not say that the mammalian brain is "on the path" to the less developed brain? After all, it is a lot easier to lose genetic information and weaken the phenotype than it is to improve it. If the shark brain was on the path to the mammalian brain, then why has it not changed in so many millions of years? I don't think sharks experience selective pressure for intelligence.

Seriously, dude, work on your understanding of population genetcs. As you pointed out, if there's little selection pressure for intelligence in sharks (they seem to be doing fine as they are), then they're unlikely to develop higher intelligence. Even if a really smart shark emerges... what good does it do him? How does it add to his genetic fitness for reproduction.

What I meant by "on the path" is that, as various subspecies branched off from earlier forms, some of them developed higher-order brain systems that led to us. We and sharks share a Phylum, Chordata, in which our neural "trunk" (spine) developed a cluster at one end that became the brain. Thus, we come from the same path. In our case, higher intelligence in our ancestors was evolutionarily useful, so it was selected for. You made the same mistake with the shorter-necked giraffes, from which long-necked giraffes evolved. The Okapi, a really short-necked giraffe, went the other direction. From http://www.livescience.com/52903-transit...ssils.html:

They analyzed the neck bones of four S. major individuals, three giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) and three okapis (O. johnstoni). On average, giraffes had 6.5-foot-long (2 meters) necks. In comparison, the necks of S. major were about 3.2 feet (1 m) long, and the okapi necks extended about 1.9 feet (60 centimeters).

The findings surprised them: Not only was the length of the S. major neck between that of the giraffe neck and the okapi neck, but its shape and the angles between bones were also intermediate.

If the researchers were to paint an S. major neck, color-coding its giraffelike parts red and its okapilike parts white, the top of the neck would be covered with red and white dots, and the bottom of the neck would be pink, the researchers said.

giraffe, Samotherium major and okapi neckPin It An illustration of the giraffe, Samotherium major and okapi necks and skulls.

"In every way, it's intermediate," said study first author Melinda Danowitz

There's no direction to evolution. Things survive and reproduce as they can, and they tend to diverge whenever the sub-populations are no longer exchanging genes (such as moving into a new environment, or developing behavioral traits that prevent mating with the original group). That does not mean that the original group must die out, or will change.

Finally, I have no idea what you mean by the bits about the loss of genetic information. How many demonstrated cases of gaining new information (such as the nylonase gene) do you need to see before you grasp that it can and does happen? Which is easier is irrelevant.

(April 10, 2016 at 12:51 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(April 10, 2016 at 12:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think your argument is crumbling, AAA.  Sorry.  Positive evidence is a bitch of a thing, isn't it?

There can't even be any positive evidence until there is a well-defined claim. Eight million pages and we still don't have that. Just pointing at apparent shortcomings in the Evolution Racer™ while Design Turbo™ is nowhere to be seen. It hasn't even been established that Design Turbo exists, or if it does, that it goes faster than a push bike; let alone the ER.

Damn, rob..... you forgot a ™, there.
Now you're gonna get your ass sued by team Turbo™

Oh shit!

They do have remarkably good lawyers, for a race team with no car.

(April 10, 2016 at 12:52 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(April 10, 2016 at 11:58 am)AAA Wrote: If the shark brain was on the path to the mammalian brain, then why has it not changed in so many millions of years?

Your problem is that you do not understand evolution because you are unwilling or simply incapable of comprehending the concept.  The emergence of a new species does not dictate the extinction of the predecessor.

It's not that I don't understand it. RocketSurgeon said that we could see the lesser developed brains (he gave the example of shark) developing into more evolved brains (he gave the example of cat). If you don't like that idea, take it up with him.

(April 10, 2016 at 1:19 pm)AAA Wrote:

(April 10, 2016 at 12:52 pm)IATIA Wrote: Your problem is that you do not understand evolution because you are unwilling or simply incapable of comprehending the concept.  The emergence of a new species does not dictate the extinction of the predecessor.

It's not that I don't understand it. RocketSurgeon said that we could see the lesser developed brains (he gave the example of shark) developing into more evolved brains (he gave the example of cat). If you don't like that idea, take it up with him.

But that's IATIA's point; you don't understand it! If you understood evolution at all, you would never have made the claim that a species must die out for a new lineage/species to emerge. Ever.

(April 10, 2016 at 1:36 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: But that's IATIA's point; you don't understand it! If you understood evolution at all, you would never have made the claim that a species must die out for a new lineage/species to emerge. Ever.

I've always been an idiot when it comes to biology or chemistry, but even I understand it. Always understood it. That's why the theist question on why there are still apes is so fundamentally ignorant and stupid. And once again, I had bad marks at school in both topics, since the formulas involved went far above my head.

(April 10, 2016 at 1:36 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(April 10, 2016 at 1:19 pm)AAA Wrote: It's not that I don't understand it. RocketSurgeon said that we could see the lesser developed brains (he gave the example of shark) developing into more evolved brains (he gave the example of cat). If you don't like that idea, take it up with him.

But that's IATIA's point; you don't understand it! If you understood evolution at all, you would never have made the claim that a species must die out for a new lineage/species to emerge. Ever.

I never made that claim. You keep putting words in my mouth, like you did when you completely misquoted me to say the exact opposite thing that I said regarding whether theories become laws. I said they do not. You then replied saying how I didn't understand it because they do not. It is very frustrating for someone to tell me I'm saying something I didn't say. 

Lets see how you like it: you really think the earth was created in "six literal 24 hour days". Wow rocket surgeon, I'm surprised to hear you say that. 
See how annoying it is. You cannot make up something and pretend someone else said it.

(April 10, 2016 at 12:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think your argument is crumbling, AAA.  Sorry.  Positive evidence is a bitch of a thing, isn't it?

You ought to read The God Delusion by Dawkins. The whole thing (so far) is negative evidence against religion. The theme is: the religious are stupid, therefore there is no God. I have yet to see any science, while Signature in the Cell is full of it.