Saturday, June 6, 2015

Editorial on 'A Second Look At "How Structure Arose In The Primordial Soup" V2: Thoughts On 'Continuity Principal'


Author Note: 6.7.15 This is my original draft of an article I'd posted earlier. Why another look? Because this blog, happens to be the only format I'm aware of in which to address the scientific errors of an article, the very one in question. My other version contains more detailed links. You might expect that the source author who's worked in the field for a decade, would provide a reference, perhaps to a researcher who has pioneered 'self-evolving molecules,' But none are obviously available. How does one venture into a new field, I.e. the study of self replication, when the basic feasibility of such an enterprise has no scientific reference to support it? The comment sections beneath their articles "are not the place for technical discussions", but then neither are the actual publications, there isn't an editorial section, so where is this venue for scientific dialogue and appropriate discussion of the material reported in the article? I can only tag the authors, Greg Fournier, and co-authors, re-post, and "hope" that they may feel compelled by their own nagging desire for scientific accuracy? Is this after all, not the central driver of science? Is it really too much to ask, for even the most basic questions as these: 1) "What are "evolving molecules" and where is this self evolving "chemistry" described in detail? 2) When was feasibility of this sub-field of "molecular ancestory" established and by whom, i.e. reference? I believe that the authors should kindly either explain what these concepts are, or retract and provide an apology for posting such an article they're not willing to discuss, as though its science is based on some established principals (several of which I highlight), principals of which they, and they alone are apparently privy to.  In the mean time, we shall forge ahead with Virtual Closed Systems theory, some of what I'm exhibiting here in my blogs.



I took a second look,  at an article in Quanta, "How structure arose in the primordial soup" and again, I believe it is grossly distorting if not factually misleading, about what science "knows" even theoretically about primordial life. Some red flags are the leaning title, which answers "how" mind you, not "If" as to imply that we are now on to the finer details of that story. Is rationality, yet another victim of the instantaneous gratification demanded by such articles?

There are many researchers who assume certain paradigms, and thus commence with research, but I'm frankly dumbfounded by the unblinking assumptions of this article, and also its technical backing. It assumes that the informed public is largely ignorant, but slanting your article to imply that they are now examining finer details instead of the big picture questions, i.e. do we really know, even remotely, what the composition was? It also completely misleads the informed public about the basic problems of the source author's theory, which of course, are never even mentioned. Just because Haldane in 1929, (who is apparently credited with the term) worked diligently on primordial soup, or Leduc in the 19th century, doesn't mean that the chemical basis is worked out any more now than it was then. The "issue" about amino acid ratio is absurdly detailed, as are the so called "ancestoral" molecules, giving the misleading impression that it is only the minutia now, of the primordial soup that is being analyzed, its actual "code" whatever that would be, and it's not clear if the contributor of the article, Greg Fournier, as well as many others in this field, really understands that the proof of concept of his model is non existent. I propose that no such proof exists, and give reasons why here. In fact I've proposed that such claims of self-organization are really "perpetuating chemistry" which I believe more aptly encapsulates the working of their theory. Most apparently believe that such perpetual chemistry is feasible, thanks to articles like these that give them a bully pulpit or megaphone, take your pick.

Thanks to a large degree on the misapprehension of laws such as "Constructal Laws", it is currently a widely held belief that the earth acts as a kind of heat regulator, like a refrigerator or a heater, depending on what is 'needed.'
Although I queried the scientists, who authored the paper about the issues relating to their self- selecting and evolving polymers, I did not get a response to these valid questions. Here is what I wrote to the authors, (below).. and I've since incorporated it into my new theory, which I'm giving folks a peek at here:


Though "Constructal Law" itself has been criticized, the concensus is that the inanimate is a phenomena connected with the animate, or vica versa .. so this incorrect view is not only owing to "Constructal Law", but also to MEP , so called maximum entropy production, among others.
Why else would the scientists use such fuzzy, non defined terms like "evolving" or selecting molecules?
I asked them to define what evolving might mean in terms of a molecule, in terms of chemistry, but there was no reply from the researchers themselves. Again it appears that researchers are going along with the flow, several theories combined to give the illusion of something real. Molecules select themselves based on some preference, and systems export entropy much like a refrigerator does. Look no further than work of MEP theory, (Kleidon 2013 but also Dewar 2005 ..) constructal law, or the combined dissipation-natural selection theory recently from MIT. Which has been advocated in different forms.
The earth is viewed as an engine, regulating the temperature of the atmosphere. Whereas it is true that our atmosphere does obviously cycle, these dissipations are in continuity, a principal I'm introducing (I'm introducing ("see Fig 2. Condition 1, B") but also here (#13), ) such that their normal forces are not opposed, these movements are in line with the packets of energy received from the sun. This means that the system will progress towards a least resistive path. I also propose in the paper, that only a normalized force, FL will be capable of doing work.

In reality, in the Virtual Closed System theory, there is no means for groups of molecules to export entropy. Despite their insistence that the earths cycle can do so. Again thanks to the "myth" promulgated by these other theories. Discussion turns into 'they said it was so.."  in what is a conventional bait and switch routine, where only part of the story is known and knowledge of its greater workings of the pseudo theory, is deferred. Based on continuity of the forces involved, inanimate molecules are subject to the same dissipative phenomenon, as their surroundings. That principal is a thermodynamic Coda on their so called self redirecting or self improving primordial broths.

Again they simply refuse to reply to the big questions about feasibility, the elephant in the room.. and it seems this kind of research approach in which a path is discussed as though the theory is accepted, and contrary theory ignored (i.e. what is "chemical evolution?") is not or at least should not, be conventional in science.

No comments:

Post a Comment