The Recurrent Problem of Chirality

Evopeach, do you know what an argument from incredulity is? Your latest post is a classic example.Scientists don't claim to know for certain how chirality came to be. What jar has done is to refute your primary assertion, namely: We do have plausible explanations within evolutionary theory. We don't know whether any of them are correct or not. But, your claim that they are "inexplicable" is falsified. Unexplained does not equal inexplicable.

Bradcap, I've been lurking here, adn your posts are confusing, as they seem to be ascribing a "position" to RAZD and others that they have not expressed and do not appear to hold.For example: It appears that RAZD agrees with you on this - he says that there is no evidence for nor against the idea, just that it is a possibility that hasn't been (and perhaps can't be) falsified. It also appears that you agree that it can't be ruled out nor supported based on the evidence.RAZD and NWR don't appear to be disagreeing with you on anything. So, sarcastic suggestions that they submit a "claim" for publication are rather out of the blue, as they are making no controversial claim, as far as I can see.I wonder if you think they're creationists, and that's why you're being so combative?Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.

You yourself have agreed that there could have been more, but there is no evidence to support this view. So, you agree with RAZD - how then is it controversial? Would you say that it's impossible? In that case, the burden of proof would fall upon you. Please show where RAZD made the claim that homology between genomes is not evidence of common descent. It is customary in requests like this to both quote and link to the message you're quoting (or at least tell us the message number).The only related point I can find of RAZD's is where he said (with respect to chirality as evidence of common descent in Message 34): That's a far cry from the claim you're crediting to him.Edited by Belfry, : typo