Although Fox had a national reputation, his professional
colleagues at University of Miami who were
biologists/biochemists considered him to be a bit of a
charlatan. They seemed not to have much respect for his science,
and occasionally they would poke fun at his work in classes. But
mostly they regarded his work as irrelevant to origin of life.
Wm. Day ("Genesis on planet earth: the search for life's
beginning." 2nd ed. Yale Univ Press. 1984.) has stated "No
matter how you look at it, [Fox's work] is scientific nonsense.
" I think this attitude was pretty general among those who
understood the complexity of life, especially biochemists. Of
course there are plenty of scientists who take exception to his
claims, and some of them have already been posted in this
thread. But mostly, his work is justly ignored by origin of life
advocates, who consider it periferal. But the whole issue of
what constitutes a living cell, and thus defines what a
"protocell" has to be is not that difficult to understand. If a
candida