> My guess is that the most you can say about these protocells is that they
> are the "protolife" in someone's theory of how life came into being.
Nothing
> more.
>
Guess is right, because in fact Fox wasn't testing a theory that involved
protocells, yet got experimental results in which protocells formed.
Protocells are real, not theoretical. They also demonstrate life; this is
not wishful thinking or delusion, but demonstrably true. Some people say
they have protolife because protocells are not fully modern in function or
morphology, yet if the basis for life is simply cellularity, metabolism,
reproduction and response to stimuli, then protocells have more than
protolife; they would qualify as completely alive. Again, there is nothing
theoretical about any of this.
Kevin L. O'Brien