[Right Wing Professor]

Like the fact that most biochemical research shows that the genetic makeup of different species do not show their evolutionary relationships as predicted.

Really? I spent a semester last year, with a class of freshman students, going through and comparing the genetic codes of various organisms, and in every case, for every organism, we found that the evolutionary relationships were exactly reflected in the genetic code.

To which specific organisms are you referring? Feel free to be as detailed as you want.

[johnnyb_61820]

See the following articles: Mix and Match in the Tree of Life Here's a gene that was thought to be exclusive to vertebrates, but now is found in a few quite disparate creatures Traditional phylogeny says that compound eyes formed once, but biochemically apparently it had to arise independently multiple times apparently humans and zebra fish share quite a lot of noncoding DNA (how many millions of years separate these guys? And the non-coding regions stay the same? Gosh!) Apparently chickens are pretty close to Turtles A quote from that article: "Given the great deal of support for much of the current pattern of vertebrate relationships, it is surprising how poorly molecular methods have fared in reconstructing the broad outline of vertebrate evolution. This is particularly worrying in the case of mitochondrial genome sequences, which are relatively large markers that have been thought of as ideal for phylogenetic work and are certainly very commonly used." Bee social behaviors are completely independent of phylogenic trees (a little offtopic, but interesting) Just for fun, more biochemical evidence for irreducible complexity Anyway, these should get you started.