The review is so shallow that it could not possibly have cost the reviewer more than ten minutes of his/her life. It picked off the author for saying things never said, totally misunderstood his elaboration of Gibbs energy and its role in biological systems, and then criticized the author for not taking into account chaos theory.
But chaos theory would be the last thing any intelligent reviewer would expect to find in an article exlicitly devoted to the explication of biological organizational principles. Any alert individual would probably instantly realize that chaos theory has practically zero role to play in such an investigation.
In my view this reviewer was not only lazy, but hostile to any and all insights that do not directly connect with his or her present concerns and/or previous commitments.
And on the strength of one inarticulate and nonresponsive review-cum-VETO, an excellent article has been condemned to oblivion. (At least for now....)
There is something really, really sick about this. I have no permission to publish my evidence. I hope that circumstance may change.
But until that time, I am not free to respond to further queries regarding this matter.
Sorry Doc. Thanks for writing.
Jeepers, you'd think the reviewer ought to at least describe the circumstances of his life and how much time he spent on it, e.g. the dog died this morning, I spent 10 minutes on the review.
Why? I would have expected such a reference. Just from what you wrote, it seems that the reviewed article put forth a suggestion without considering currently accepted theories; even if one is challenging current theory, it must be addressed even if to show its lack. (That's the way I got my new ideas into print; show why they are better.)