"Thanks for the education. Do I understand, then, that 'organic' is a subset
of 'biomolecule'?"
No, because (very nearly) all biomolecules are organic molecules, but not
all (or even most) organic molecules are biomolecules.
And it is "biomolecule", not "bio molecule".
"You wrote 'Both terms literally mean "chemical (or molecule) of life..."'
I am not real happy with that."
I'm sorry to hear that, but those are the official scientific definitions,
based on the Greek word _bios_ which mean life. I can understand your
discomfort; it's often not easy abandoning a prior false belief once you
hear the truth. All I can do is assure you everything I have told you is
the truth, as far as I know.
"I assume it is 'true,' that other people in biochemistry accept it."
You say that as if you are skeptical. Ask some biologists if what I'm
saying is correct. Or better yet let me quote from one of my biochemistry
textbooks: "Our understanding of how living systems work has grown
enormously in the past 150 years--much more than anyone could have imagined
at the beginning of this period. This growth has been responsible for a
change in our view of the natural world that is at least as revolutionary as
the changes that have been brought about by the extraordinaory advances in
physics and astronomy in the same period. The revolution in biology is
largely a consequence of the development of a new way of approaching and
describing the operation of living systems--a new language--that makes
possible the analysis of biological processes in chemical terms, rather than
in vague and vitalistic terms. It is hard for an educated person today to
comprehend the extent of the aura of mystery that surrounded anything
connected with the word "life" 150 years ago. The mystery has been
disappearing from area after another as our understanding has increased at
an exponential rate.
"The new understanding of life is described largely in the language of
biochemistry. Owing to the enormous advances in the past 60 years,
biochemistry now serves the basic role in describing biological phenomena
that anatomy did a century ago. Our understanding of biology has grown from
a descriptive level based on gross and microscopic anatomy to the point at
which the basic chemical nature of the majority of of biological materials
is known, many of the biochemical pathways for the synthesisand degradation
of these materials have been worked out, and the mechanisms for the
regulation of some of these pathways are becoming understood....This record
of progress leads more and more biologists and biochemists to believe that
most biological phenomena will eventually be understood in chemical terms.
"Biochemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the
structures, interactions, and transformations of biological molecules. By
another definition, biochemistry is the chemistry of life. The two
definitions are similar, because chemistry is concerned with the structures,
interactions, and transformations of molecules in general, and biological
molecules are the molecules of life."
"But what it does is solve the problem (I am addressing) by a word
definition."
Then I guess I don't understand your problem, because simply recognizing
that some organic molecules are exclusively involved in living systems does
not automatically prove that abiogenesis has occured, or for that matter
cannot occur.
"I happen to think it is a 'bad' definition, in that it defines 'life' by
the molecule's usage."
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you mean that "life" is being
defined as the interaction of certain molecules, then in an overly
simplistic fashion that is exactly how modern biochemists and biologists
tend to define "life". The only reason why this definition would be "bad"
is if you believe there is more to life than these molecules. That leads to
vitalism, which modern science rejects. Or are you in fact a proponent of
vitalism?
"One might as well define a piece of rubber as 'car' because it is often
found in auto tires!"
That is a bad analogy for a number of reasons. Rubber is not used
exclusively in making cars, a car is an object and life is a process, a car
is not defined by the parts its contains whereas life is, etc. However, if
you feel that strongly about it, then perhaps you should write a letter to
_Science_ or _Biochemistry_ explaining how the modern chemical concept of
life is wrong. Of course, you will be expected to offer some evidence to
support your claim, you will be asked to suggest an alternative definition,
and you will be asked to supply the evidence that supports your definition.
Better get cracking.
Oh what the heck, how do you feel about this definition: Abiogenesis is the
process by which biological materials are made from non-biological materials
using non-biological systems. I would still define biological materials as
those used exclusively in biological systems, and this definition would
still make a Miller-Urey experiment, Wohler's experiment or thermal
copolymerization experiments abiogenetic events, but I would also concede
that biological materials (like urea) are not "living matter" in the way you
seem to mean it, i.e. whole organisms. Would you consider this workable?
Kevin L. O'Brien