From: "Gary Britt" 


"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:k8nsn197t299sded04979qo6sobuk1n2v9{at}4ax.com...
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news::
> > Of course that's why there are so many complicated life forms on all the
> > other planets we have observed so far.  Its easy for all these things
and
> > the right conditions to exist.  Almost impossible to stop it from
happening.
> >
> > Regarding the obviousness of evolution that certainly explains all the
> > observations of all the transitional species in the fossil records.
That
> > explains all the transitional species that have developed out of sharks
and
> > alligators.  That explains why new more intelligent ape species keep
> > appearing on the planet.  I can't wait to see the next zoo exhibit where
the
> > newest of transitional smarter ape species goes on display.  I
understand
> > that the lack of any evolution in modern man is caused by the fact that
we
> > are so smart and well developed societally, but that doesn't apply to
apes
> > and other mammals so those easy to have transitional species of new more
> > intelligent ready to compete for territory with modern man apes should
be
> > all around us.  Maybe its bigfoot that's the latest transitional more
> > intelligent ape species.
>
> Presumably your stream of babble impresses people where you live. Have you
> noticed that it's not so effective with people who have done some reading?

More ad hominem attacks indicating a complete lack of a substantive
response.  If what you write below is an example of the learned nature your
reading has resulted in you, then I'd say your reading to date has left you
pitifully unprepared for a thoughtful discussion on the issues Bob and I
are attempting to discuss.


>We
> do not know how life started, but we DO know that it is very difficult to
> get started. We also know that you need "just so" conditions
to sustain
> life. That's why life is only known on Earth in our solar system (we are
> unable to observe sufficient details to know whether life exists in any of
> the billions of other solar systems).

Or to confirm that billions of other solar systems even exist at all.  I'm
not saying they don't, but right now that's just a reasoned GUESS.  GUESSES
are as I have previously demonstrated *FAITH/BELIEF* in the unknown.

>
> The stuff about sharks and alligators is typical of the smoke-and-mirrors
> nonsense that issues from ID supporters. The awkward fact is that much of
> science concerns tricky details - you have to do some serious reading to
> understand the issues.

Typical of the science bigots.  When your theories fail to answer some of
the most basic observations and inquiries then respond by telling the
quetioner they aren't smart enough to understand.  Only the science bigots
are smart enough to understand, but trust us we *know*.  Why don't you just
get some special long robes and funny hats to wear and once a week we can
all get together while you read to us from the holy science scriptures and
try to explain to us unenlightened ones that which is too complicated for
all but the robe wearing science priests to understand.


> When you consider how astonishingly many species
> exist today, I don't know why anyone would want to find a shark with an
> alligator's head. Hint: An alligator's head is most useful when attached
> to an alligator's body and used in an alligator's habitat.

The entire paragraph has nothing to do with what I wrote.  You are the only
one talking about such nonsense as alligator heads on sharks.  The fact is
that out of one side of your mouth you say evolution is easy, necessary,
must happen, etc etc yet when is pointed out that sharks and alligators
that have been around longer than almost any other species have failed to
ever evolve you start talking nonsense about alligator heads on shark's
bodies out of the other side of your mouth.

The second sentence in the above paragraph does not logically flow from or
relate to the first sentence.  Maybe some people who have read all the
books you have are impessed by the above nonsense, but I'm not.
(paraphrasing you here).

>
> The "why no other intelligent ape" speculation is typical of
what I would
> expect from a child enquiring about Santa Claus.

That response is typical of what I would expect from a child attempting to
defend something about which their limited understanding does not allow any
kind of meaningful response.   Either explain using the scientific method
why a more intelligent ape hasn't evolved yet in light of your past
statements about the manifest destiny of evolution or STFU.

> Some actual thinking and
> reading reveals that it takes a really long time to evolve intelligence.

How long?  Apes are intelligent.  There has been plenty of time for a more
intelligent ape to develop.  How many intelligent apes before man and
neanderthal long ago passed out of existence??  Yet you claim there hasn't
been enough time.  GMAFB.

> We are not going to observe it!

Have we observed neanderthal or his remnants?  Got any proof we won't
observe it?  Man has been around how many 10's of thousands of years and
has never observed it in that time?  When your theories fail just retreat
to "its true it just takes longer than we have to know, so trust us we
are correct.  Oh and kiss my science ring".


> Also, once you get one dominant species,
> you aren't going to get another.


Really, is this the knowledge you get from reading all the books you claim
nobody else has read?  Such insightful pieces of knowledge as this little
gem.

Just a few thoughts from the unwashed masses not qualified to wear your
priestly robes of the ministers of science.

1.  Neanderthal was dominant until modern man came along.  Under the
scientific method if you can find one observation that doesn't fit the
guess/hypothesis you postulate above doesn't that disprove your hypothesis?
In what book did you read the above brilliant gem while criticizing others
for not having read the same?

2. Wasn't some other species dominant before Neanderthal came along?  See
1. above for continuation of thinking.

3. Weren't dinosaurs dominant before the evolution of dominant mammals? 
See 1. above for continuation of thinking.

4. Let's ignore all the obvious things above that make your ridiculous
hypothesis above incorrect, and please give me the scientific method and
observations and tests used in these books you keep citing that gave rise
to the hypothesis above that once you get a dominant species all evolution
stops?  Sub-question, how does evolution know when that dominant species
has evolved so it can go on vacation and no longer cause evolution in that
or other closely related species.

Gary

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5