Similar arguments have been made, though not this one precisely. You should see "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life" in Cell Biology 2004.
I think the reason that such things as the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't appear in peer-review is that there is a large prejudice against it. Even the biggest anti-evolution screeds in peer-reviewed literature cannot go so far as to suggest that evolution did not happen, even with the best evidence and arguments. Just see what happened in the Sternberg case -- and Sternberg was just the editor, and common ancestry wasn't even questioned!
For example, in the "Chance and Necessity" article mentioned above, they simply had to conclude that it may be some cause that is not previously investigated, using methods that are not readily available. Similarly, when the creationist Lambert pointed out that the fidelity of DNA replication relies on enzymes coded by DNA itself, and without those enzymes the cell would deteriorate into error catastrophe (thus pointing out a circular dependency), he could not say that it was evidence against evolution (which it was), but only that it was an "unresolved problem in theoretical biology".
Thanks for the response. But I meant a mainstream science peer reviewed journal. IOW, why don't most scientists buy the argument?
As an aside, is there money to be made by betting against mainstream science in this case? I'm always looking for money making opportunities,
The problem with this assertion is immediately obvious to me, though maybe not to you.
You assert that it is a circular dependency, but a DAG relationship (arguably the most common graph in nature, due in no small part to the laws of physics) will generate the exact same result.
And that is the issue. You see this apparent discrepancy and immediately assume circular dependency -- which would be hard to explain away theoretically. I see that and immediately see the consequence of a DAG, which also happens to be the thermodynamically favored pathway for molecular systems. Sometimes, things really are as complicated as they look.