
This is a new JHT peer review stage article, in the re-formatting and or re-constructionstage of development, about which: comments, suggestions, and or criticism are welcome, which can be submitted via: (a) the threads below, (b) comments added into the "this" wiki page, via the EasyEdit button, (c) attachment added to this page, via EasyEdit tools, (d) review posted externally, e.g. in beta wiki, WordPress, Blogger, your own website, etc., or (e) email comments sent to JHT editor Libb Thims directly via libbthims@gmail.com, which will be made public.

This is a new JHT peer review stage article, in the re-formatting and or re-construction

stage of development, about which: comments

, suggestions, and or criticism are welcome, which can be submitted via: (a) the threads below, (b) comments added into the "this" wiki page, via the EasyEdit button, (c) attachment added to this page, via EasyEdit tools, (d) review posted externally, e.g. in beta wiki

, WordPress

, Blogger, your own website, etc., or (e) email comments sent to JHT editor Libb Thims directly via libbthims@gmail.com, which will be made public.

Article
Second Law and Three Evolution Paradoxes: Life, Evolve, and Soul | Peer Review
(an Entropy submission turned JHT submission) [N1]

Article | Review versions
● Formatted article | 18 Nov 2015 | Pages: 14 | Format: PDF

Abstract
The formatted abstract of the working draft-article is as follows:

Three main paradoxes are prevalent in attempts at a unification of Charles Darwin’s 1859 theory that species have evolved over time — by natural selection, in the struggle for life, from earlier forms, deriving from a warm pond, filled with all sorts of chemicals, i.e. atoms and molecules, such as “ammonia and phosphoric salts”, subjected to light, heat, and electricity — with Rudolf Clausius’ 1865 pronouncement that the energy U of the universe is conserved and the entropy S of the universe tends to a maximum, are discussed, namely: life paradox, evolve paradox, and soul paradox; the former two being pointed out directly in 1903 by Jean Perrin: “molecules and atoms are lifeless beings that never evolve”, the latter evidenced colloquially by the cultural divide about belief in the theory of evolution; in America, e.g., some 60 percent of people do not believe that humans evolved over time from earlier species.

Author
Libb Thims
Email: libbthims@gmail.com
Institute of Human Thermodynamics, Chicago, IL;

Received: 18 Nov 2015; Reviewed: 19 Nov - 10 Dec; Published: 11 Dec 2015

Notes | Review period
N1. This article was written out of a 22 Sep 2015 request by Milivoje Kostic, the editor-in-chief of the thermodynamics “section” (Ѻ) of the Entropy journal, for his special issue on “Exploring the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (Ѻ). Thims originally turned down the request—as he has other journal requests of recent (e.g. Gheorghe Savoiu’s 2015 article request for his Econophysics, Sociophysics, and Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal), per reasons including that the publication of Hmolpedia as a print set is underway.

While writing the Hmolpedia Jean Perrin article, on 5 Nov 2015, however, and reflecting on the Perrin statement: “molecules atoms are lifeless things that never evolve”, Thims surmised that possibly a short article could be written on this in conjunction with the Gibbs based evolution theory work of Lawrence Henderson (1913, 1917, 1935) and Harold Blum (1934) out of courtesy to Kostic, reciprocation, so to say, for him letting Thims lecture to his mechanical engineering students in 2013.

Thims then wrote the article with the peer review candidate of Georgi Gladyshev, the 2009 to present arch enemy of Thims’ position that life does not exist and is a defunct scientific theory, to probe Gladyshev to see if he could be cajoled into review commentary; being that he has been non-response to Thims since their 2009 fall-out over their very heated (2012) Hmolpedia thread (Ѻ) life does not exist debate. Sure enough the trick worked; Gladyshev’s review is below, as is another anon review. The article being rejected by Entropy per reason of the two negative reviews; thereafter published in JHT as means to conserve the work of the article and the review commentary, listed below.

Peer review

Reviews \| Review board \| Other

Reviews | Review board | Other

Anon | 2 Dec 2015 | Submitted to: mdpi.com/journal/entropy upload processing system

Extensive editing of English language and style required. The author is extremely confused about both physics and biology; there is no sign of detailed quantitative understanding of the relevant science.

Libb Thims | 11 Dec 2015 | 1:20 PM EST | Post

Response: This anon seems to be a generic scientist of some sorts (possibly even an information theorist), who is missing the point of the article, which, to put things bluntly, RE: “I am extremely confused about biology”, is that the science of biology, by 1797 coining, by Theodore Roose, from his Outlines of the Theory of Life Force, is the subject of the study of the “life force” (a vitalism term). Life force, however, is a concept disproved by the Helmholtz school in the 19th century. There is NO such thing as a "force" is alive. Just as there is NO such thing as a "power" that is alive (such as bandied about by Bishop Butler (1736) nearly two century ago, via his living power theories). The so-called subject of “biology”, which this reviewer says I am confused about, is correctly a subject that every person on the planet is confused about (the handful of abioism thinkers aside). I guess the message of this article when over this reviewers head?

Georgi Gladyshev | 3 Dec 2015 | Submitted to: mdpi.com/journal/entropy upload processing system

Comments: This article contains some interesting facts, most of which are of historical interest. The author mainly discusses works of famous authors of the last century. The author has not offered his own scientific theory and has not made any major discoveries. However, he is attempting to make a number of changes in terminology in science. Many references are made to non-peer-reviewed articles in the encyclopedia EoHT. The proposed terminology of the author is not recognized in modern science. However, he uses this terminology which ostensibly recognized now.

For example, the author refers to his articles in the encyclopedia EoHT, where he uses a broad view on "the molecule" (hydrogen molecule, human molecule, planet - molecule, etc.). The author uses this terminology is not in a figurative sense (the allegorical or the metaphorical sense), as this did some scientists before, but in the literal sense. Of course, it is the eclectic mixing of objects of our world. Such an concept, in principle, is incorrect, it does not allow to use mathematics to describe the evolution of matter.

In the article “Life terminology upgrades” the author writes:

"In physical science, life terminology upgrades or reforms, in the framework of the explicit 2009-presentdefunct theory of life perspective, and or "life does not exist" (2010-present) purview, are terms or synonym alternatives or upgrades to "life" and all bio-centric terms, and their antonyms."

In the peer-reviewed paper the author writes:

“This issue, however, has now largely been resolved, such as been dealt with in the 2007 to 2014 issues of the Journal of Human Thermodynamics, and there now are a number of historically established physicochemcially-neutral upgrades for all “life”, “bio”, or “viva” usages, the main core substitute being terminological replacement of anything previous deemed “alive” by the phrase “powered CHNOPS+ structure”, or variations thereof; an upgrade that enters all the former defunct terms, each being religio-mythology based in origin [pg. 8].”.

The vast majority of professional scientists - physicists, chemists and biologists cannot agree on the desirability of such scientifically unjustified terminological changes. In modern textbooks similar ideas about life are absent. There is even an article [by Georgi Gladyshev] which refers to the inadvisability of changing the specified terminology [Life as a Phenomenon (Ѻ). IJALSE, Vol. 1 (1), 97-98. 2014] Of course, the author has the right to express their opinions and offer own terminology. However, if this terminology is not recognized the professional science, the author should points out that this opinion is his own opinion or the opinion only of individual scientists. Several references to famous scientists of the past, I believe, are insufficient. I am sure, in our time with regard to new scientific achievements, these prominent scholars could change their point of view.

Unfortunately, the author does not mention the recent works that discuss problems of thermodynamics and evolution, for example see: Stanley Salthe:

● Serrelli, Emanuele and Gontier, Nathalie. (2009). Macroevolution: Explanation, Interpretation and Evidence (abs). Springer.
● Home – DarwinThenAndNow.com [by Richard Nelson, creationist]
● Gladyshev, Georgi P. (2015). “Thermodynamics of Aging and Heredity” (abs), Natural Science, 7(5), May.

If the author will speak about mistakes of past and will present the necessary additional clarifications, the historical facts could be published in a scientific journal.
Now, however, I unfortunately can not recommend this work for publication in any scientific journal.

Libb Thims | 11 Dec 2015 | 1:28 PM EST | Post

Response: I was expecting something more from Gladyshev, being that I used to consider him a great thinker, possibly he was back in the 1970s when his irritation against Prigogine caused him to bubble up his Gibbsian theory of evolution. Now, however, with him trying to refute me via citation to information theorist Stanley Salthe and creationist Richard Nelson, I don’t know what to say. His past acumen seems to have gone to pasture?