I think it important reinforce the point YOU are the one questioning the author's thesis, therefore it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate what has substantively changed from George Wald's original comments as opposed to the author's maintaining nothing has substantively changed with regard to said thesis.
Any other response from you apart from addressing this dynamic would be prima facie evidence of obfuscation on your part.
But it's not me "questioning the author's thesis", it's all of science, which I've been trying over several posts to introduce you to.
papertyger: ""...as opposed to the author's maintaining nothing has substantively changed with regard to said thesis."
Any other response from you apart from addressing this dynamic would be prima facie evidence of obfuscation on your part."
But there's nothing "obfuscation" about it, Mr. Horse.
I'm merely leading you to water, which nobody can force you to drink.
But if you do, you'll find many changes from 1954, such as they are, in my recommended readings.
from the article: "After reading it carefully, I wondered if the eminent researchers were listening to what science, chemistry was revealing, and I wondered that none of them named the common underlying problem, Chemical Equilibrium."
Chemical equilibrium is the basic assumption of all such research, so the question becomes: under what natural circumstances can organic molecules form & reproduce before chemical equilibrium works its processes on them?