I'd guess someone has already said this, but I'm not going to read the whole damn thread to find it and I think it should be said.......
Why wasn't this published in a peer reviewed journal?
Why wasn't this published in a peer reviewed journal?
Maybe because it has no merit. AS must be financially desperate to risk making itself into a laughingstock.
Similar arguments have been made, though not this one precisely. You should see "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life" in Cell Biology 2004.
I think the reason that such things as the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't appear in peer-review is that there is a large prejudice against it. Even the biggest anti-evolution screeds in peer-reviewed literature cannot go so far as to suggest that evolution did not happen, even with the best evidence and arguments. Just see what happened in the Sternberg case -- and Sternberg was just the editor, and common ancestry wasn't even questioned!
For example, in the "Chance and Necessity" article mentioned above, they simply had to conclude that it may be some cause that is not previously investigated, using methods that are not readily available. Similarly, when the creationist Lambert pointed out that the fidelity of DNA replication relies on enzymes coded by DNA itself, and without those enzymes the cell would deteriorate into error catastrophe (thus pointing out a circular dependency), he could not say that it was evidence against evolution (which it was), but only that it was an "unresolved problem in theoretical biology".