> > In article <38c5d0dd.0310131443.ccf5...@posting.google.com>, Frank J wrote:

> >>"R. Dunno" <muens...@hushmail.com> wrote in message <news:slrnbok078.mva.muenster@old486-20.hushmail.com>...

> SNIP:

> >>Michael Behe, whom Sean raved about, admitted that chimps and humans
> >>share common ancestors, and thus saw no need to propose a recent
> >>abiogenesis of one or more eukaryotes, much less a theory for it. One
> >>then would expect Sean to challenge Behe directly on this point. In
> >>fact, given that Behe does not have "a prior commitment to naturalism"
> >>one would expect Sean to consider Behe a more reasonable opponent than
> >>us "dogmatic disciples of Darwin."

> > BTW, where'd he go?

> Give him some credit. He came in for two rounds, and perhaps he will try
> again later. Of course, all he did was try to snow us with irrelevant
> but impressive-sounding quote mining, but that's something.

> And his current position seems to be that humans might be apes or might
> not, but there just isn't enough evidence yet either way. So his
> argument with Behe wouldn't be over issues of common descent, but over
> the sufficiency of the data to show common descent. I'd love to see that
> argument if only it could be arranged.