Replies

You haven't responded to what I asked you in 231, which was in response to your claim that my conclusions were unreasonable, because they are tainted by my agenda. What I asked you was:

Those [listed in 231] are the observed facts. Please avoid all ideological agendae. Now give us your "reasonable" interpretation of the data.

What you've done is give me more "agenda" stuff (scientists are driven by ambition, they want grant money, etc.). You don't like Carl Sagan, although you've cited no errors on his part. You don't like the term "transitional species," although you don't offer any other explanation for what they are. You don't like the scientists in the pharmaceutical industry. Fine. We're developing a splendid collection of things on your personal "I don't like" list. Which doesn't help us resolve the issues here.

Now then, back to the unanswered question: What are your (presumably) agenda-free conclusions about the facts I mentioned in post 231?

A transitional species is a species entirely characterized by scientists, not by science. Missing links (I assume that's what you refer to) are, I repeat, of attractive surface appeal only. Closely related species are, provably, only closely related species (chickadees, Carolina chickadees). Drawing the conclusion that one derives from another is entirely an assumption. A self-serving presumption, if I may add.

I happen to like the scientists in the pharm industry because they are sufficiently humble. They are humble because they know they can kill people and other people will know full well that that is exactly what has happened, when it happens. I believe I said as much--they know better than to leave their claims unqualified by possible disaster.

Ontological scientists (of Big Bangs and evo-genetics) never need feel the horrible accountability of human error. They just go on to the "next best theory" without the uncomfortable knowledge that their errors led to genuine harm. They enjoy, as I said, the full scope and preciousness of their imaginations. You can trust them, put your childlike faith in them--I do not.

You affect an indignation I do not think you feel--a defensive mechanism, and a posturing gesture of injury not made. I addressed fully your questions.

You, however, did not respond to a question I asked twice.

Why were there so many species eons ago---and so few species today?