Kate, this thread came about because I expressed my frustration elsewhere that time and time again when eloquent supporters of natural selection debate with creationists it ends up with the creationist trouncing off when challenged on the nebulous nature of their conclusions. It always boils down to some kind of feeling or abstract reason yet the naturalist argument is invariably supported with empirical evidence and is generally a far stronger, more logical and scientifically genuine answer.
You started this thread to propose that evolution is guided and you gave an example of a process that you think demonstrates this guidance. You did not explain why you thought this was the case, why your conclusion merited greater credence. Myself and other posters have been trying to get this explanation from you, not as some kind of game, not to try and trick you but simply to try and understand.
Your reason you finally gave was "because the hypothesis is not disproved by the facts". For someone with your scientific background this seems to me to be a fairly indistinct reason and naturally suggests some further questions. You have clearly made a choice but logic behind this is still very open. I could research the topic until the cows come home but it won't explain to me why you have made the choice that it is more probable L/H molecules are the way they are because God is guiding the chemical process. The only person who can do that is you.
If you feel the questions are repetitive or circular then it's only because your replies have been pretty high level and you try to deflect the questions by various diversionary tactics.
