This is all really beside the point, though. Corky is making some pretty bold scientific claims, and scientific claims require (a) falsifiability and (b) evidence. Without these two things, Corky is essentially just saying, "This is what I believe," and that's not how science works. Corky either needs to get out of the atoms and biology business or start making falsifiable claims that are supported by evidence.
You are correct about me making some bold claims, Matthew, but the claims I am making do not contradict any of the current scientific models as far as I can see. All scientific theory starts with observation, then a theory and then a testing of the theory. It should stand up to challenges and predict outcomes. So far in my experience my model has done both.
You bring up some good points about how complex organisms are and how energy is supplied to cells that do involuntary work to keep a being alive who acts voluntarily.
There are rules that apply to the way chemistry interacts with gravity and electromagnetic radiation and those appear to us (become observable) on the gross level. For instance we can speculate how the molecule H2O could act at a million degrees below 0 on a planet the size of Jupiter, but we will never have the true empirical measurements, it will always be speculative.
We are really lucky to be on a planet with such a moderate temperature that water can exist on it in all three forms of matter solid, uncompressable liquid, and compressible gas. We can see that it acts completely differently in regards to gravity (Water tank with water - open the hose at the bottom and all the water qoes away. Fill it with crushed ice and it stays put. As water vapor (without pressure differential), it stays put. You see all of what it does but the fundamental question is always "why."
I propose that the chemical properties of four essential elements that make replicating chains of amino acids just happening to be on the planet in a state ready to form amino acids under the right set of planetary conditions is neither no more or less extraordinary than a quark becoming and disappearing in the creation of a star.
Again, this is a postulate, intended to be a working model. If you would like to challenge it or put it to the test in that regard, it would be appreciated.