Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site phri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!timeinc!phri!lonetto
From: lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Flying Squirrels
Message-ID: <222@phri.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-May-85 21:53:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: phri.222
Posted: Sat May  4 21:53:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 22:19:07 EDT
References: <335@iham1.UUCP> <3570015@csd2.UUCP> <975@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 25

> full flight.  That is obvious.  I am of course unconvinced that they
> are intermediates (that is, intermediates which developed from a
> non-intermediate).  The skin flaps are not wings and there is no
> evidence that they ever will be.  There is also (as far as I am aware)
> no evidence that they ever were anything but skin flaps.  Perhaps you
> will say that there is not evidence that they were *not* something
> besides skin flaps.  

> Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--

I am getting quite tired of reading this type of argument.  Both ends of
this dispute are arguing from speculation.  To each of  the  antagonists
the burden of proof rests on the other, since one is "religious" and the
other is not.  I wish that when people had a point to  make  they  would
choose  well  documented examples to support it.  It is obvious from the
tone of exchange in this net that any speculation will be  pounced  upon
by  one  side  or  the  other, most certainly by the soft spoken (though
somewhat intractable) Mr. DuBois.  While speculation has  its  place  in
both  science  and  religion, that place is not in presenting a point of
view in the presence of hostile criticism.

Life goes on.

Michael Lonetto
PHRI