Yup, in typical liberal fahion they dissect the background of their targets in order to avoid the actual subject.
But this is necessary when you have no coherent argument.
" Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought. Inaccuracies may occur in molecular phylogenies for a variety of reasons.
Prior to analysis, the sequences of corresponding genes from each animal must be placed in register (aligned) with each other so that homologous sites within each sequence can be compared. However, sequence divergences may be sufficiently large that unambiguous alignments cannot be achieved, and different alignments may lead to different inferred relationships. Additionally, the data are often sufficiently noisy that there may be a lack of strong statistical support for important groupings. 1
The article then discusses a figure detailed similarities and differences in 18s rRNA sequences which show that mollusks (scallops) are more closely related to deuterostomes (sea urchins) than arthropods (brine shrimp). Of course, this is not too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp. So, the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin is not surprising. However, in this light it is surprising is that a tarantula (also an arthropod) has a 92% correlation with the scallop. Here we have two different arthropods, a shrimp and an tarantula. How can a scallop be much more related to one type of arthropod and much less related to the other type of arthropod? This troubling thought led the authors of the Science article to remark:
Different representative species, in this case brine shrimp or tarantula for the arthropods, yield wildly different inferred relationships among phyla. Both trees have strong bootstrap support (percentage at node). . . The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate to successfully compensate for long branch attraction between the animal phyla. Without knowing the correct tree ahead of time, this question will be hard to answer. However, current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly . . .
There are many other interesting little problems concerning commonly used phylogenic tracing genes and proteins. For example, mammalian and amphibian "luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone" (LHRH) is identical. However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH. Are humans therefore more closely related to frogs than to birds? Not according to standard evolutionary phylogeny trees. Again, the data does not match the classical theory in this particular situation.15" [LINK]
Yep- Phylogeny- manipulate the data to suit hte hypothesis- if the data refutesd the hypothesis, just ignore it (or better yet- just simpyl attack the credentials of anyone that bring the data to the table- that's always a winning tactic amoung those who don't like the data- Ah- shallow victories- but I guess shallow is betterthan bnothing if that's what gets one up in the am)
‘Synthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the racemic modification.’ and ‘Optically inactive reagents yield optically inactive products.’3
This is a consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
To resolve a racemate (i.e. separate the two enantiomers), another homochiral substance must be introduced. The procedure is explained in any organic chemistry textbook. The idea is that right-handed and left-handed substances have identical properties, except when interacting with other chiral phenomena. The analogy is that our left and right hands grip an achiral (non-chiral) object like a baseball bat equally, but they fit differently into a chiral object like a left-handed glove. Thus to resolve a racemate, an organic chemist will usually use a ready-made homochiral substance from a living organism. The reaction products of the R and L enantiomers with an exclusively right handed substance R', that is R-R' and L-R' (called diastereomers), are not mirror images. So they have different physical properties, e.g. solubility in water, thus they can be separated.
However, this does not solve the mystery of where the optical activity in living organisms came from in the first place. A recent world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists.4 The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2–N. For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2–100 = 10–30. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be compounded. Chance is thus not an option.
A further problem is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of the amino acid racemization dating method. Its main proponent is Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California.5 As a dating method, it is not very reliable, since the racemization rate is strongly dependent on temperature and pH, and depends on the particular amino acid.6 Racemization is also a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis.7 It shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life.
A tragic reminder of the importance of chirality is thalidomide. In the early 1960s, this drug was prescribed to pregnant women suffering from morning sickness. However, while the left-handed form is a powerful tranquilliser, the right handed form can disrupt fetal development, resulting in severe birth defects. Unfortunately, the synthesis of the drug produced a racemate, as would be expected, and the wrong enantiomer was not removed before the drug was marketed.8
In my own undergraduate chemistry education, one of the required experiments demonstrated these concepts. We synthesized the dissymmetric complex ion, [Co(H2NC2H4NH2)3]3+,9 from achiral reagents, so a racemate was produced. We resolved it by reacting it with a homochiral acid from a plant source, forming diastereomers that could be resolved by fractional crystallisation. When the resultant homochiral crystals were dissolved, and activated charcoal (a catalyst) added, the substance quickly racemized, because a catalyst accelerates approach to equilibrium.
Origin-of-life researchers have tried to think of other means of producing the required homochirality. There have been unsuccessful attempts to resolve racemates by other means.
Transfer RNAs selected the right enantiomer
One attempt to solve the chirality problem was proposed by Russell Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego, and an atheist. He claimed: ‘From the start of their [Transfer RNA synthetases’] existence, they probably bound only L-amino acids.’27 He never explains how such complicated enzymes could have functioned unless they were themselves homochiral, or how they would operate before RNA was composed of homochiral ribose. Doolittle’s ‘solution’ is mere hand-waving. It is hardly worth refuting except that it appeared in a well-known anti-creationist book, which says something about the quality of its editing, or the quality of anti-creationist arguments.
It seems like Doolittle was trying to explain away his prior televised evolution/creation debate with biochemist Duane Gish held before 5,000 people at Liberty University on 13 Oct 1981. The pro-evolution journal Science described the debate as a ‘rout’ in favour of Gish.28 The next day, the debate was reported by the pro-evolution Washington Post under the headline ‘Science Loses One to Creationism’. The sub-headline cited Doolittle’s anguished remark: ‘How am I going to face my wife?’ showing that Doolittle himself knew he was defeated.
If we can only ‘speculate’ on the origin of life, why do so many people state that evolution is a ‘fact’? Repeat a rumour often enough and people will swallow it." [LINK]