"It's commonly used among biochemists as a substitute for "biochemical",
especially if what is being referred to is a macromolecule like a
protein,
starch or DNA. Both terms literally mean "chemical (or molecule) of
life",
hence my definition of "chemicals or molecules used exclusively in
biological systems."
I asked: "How does that differ from an 'organic' molecule?"
Kevin replied:
"An "organic" molecule is any that contain carbon, but generally it is
reserved for alkanes, alcohols, esters, ethers, carboxylic acids,
hydrocarbons and other aliphatics, and aromatics like benzene, to name a
few. Technically, carbonates and bicarbonates are also "organic"
molecules,
but they are generally counted as inorganic."
Thanks for the education. Do I understand, then, that "organic" is a
subset
of "bio molecule?"
You wrote " Both terms literally mean "chemical (or molecule) of life..."
I am not real happy with that. I assume it is "true," that other people
in biochemistry accept it. But what it does is solve the problem (I am
addressing) by a word definition. I happen to think it is a "bad"
definition, in that it defines "life" by the molecule's usage. One might
as well define a piece of rubber as "car" because it is often found in
auto tires!
I see you've addressed that subject more sharply in another post, so I'll
move on to that one (tomorrow).
Best
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]