To Casiothesane and others, or anyone reading in the future, it’s probably bad form to comment on a 6 year-old post and also, probably not fair to the opinions of those who have had six years to emend them, even if they still have the same views they may express them more persuasively, now, or in ways I could not anticipate. That qualification given, I suggest people interested in this topic look into the work of Thoke, Olsen, Bagatolli and colleagues, who have made progress on Ling’s AI theory in the last three years (like Google those names and “water” “glycolysis” “ACDAN”). You will find these issues are almost certainly more complicated than some of the comments skeptical of Ling propose. Also, I will just say with too-broad-of-strokes that Ling exhaustively pours over the criticisms mentioned in these comments, for example regarding the “high energy” phosphate bond, in his books, which are for the most part available, detailing the experiments of himself and tens of other labs. They are not based upon one or two theoretical drawings or speculations, I could be wrong to assume they were taken like that.
I don’t expect any of this to be convincing, and hope this comment meets the guidelines. I made an account just to make this comment. My point is just that if you look into Ling’s evidence, which was not just from one or few experiments, I believe you will see these issues are far more controversial than many here are letting on. Of course some of your experiments work, on a daily basis; what is at issue is why they work the way they do, and whether a different “why” would lead to new testable ideas in the field. I also made significant progress on Ling’s work in my forthcoming dissertation, and if anyone out there still sees this post live or interesting, I may introduce those data in a future comment.