
The premise or theory that a human is a "molecule" or "abstract molecule", with a measurable molecular formula, no different, advanced animate and turnover rate properties aside, from any other molecule, e.g. water, hemoglobin, etc., or more particularly animate molecule, e.g. retinal, DTA, etc., is what is called human molecular theory.

Molecules (oxygen to hemoglobin to human)

The premise or theory that a human is a "molecule" or "abstract molecule", with a measurable molecular formula, no different, advanced animate and turnover rate properties aside, from any other molecule, e.g. water, hemoglobin, etc., or more particularly animate molecule, e.g. retinal, DTA, etc., is what is called human molecular theory.

In science, human molecular theory refers to the theory that a human is a molecule—a structure comprised of two or more atoms.

History

See main: HMS pioneers

The term “human molecular theory” seems to have been an Hmolpedia-coined term, first used on 07 Jul 2010 on the atomic theory page (see: version 10) to describe American limnologist Robert Sterner and James Elser’s 2002 publication of the human molecular formula. [1]

In this context, French philosopher Jean Sales’ 1789 coining of the term “human molecule”, and his supposition that human molecules arose through a “great process” from the atoms of the earth, might well be classified as the “human molecular hypothesis”. [2]

Overview
A subset of atomic theory logic is 'human molecular theory', the premise that humans are made of atoms, ordered in specific arrangement, in the form of a dynamic molecule. The immensity of this simple doctrine cannot be overestimated in terms of its far-reaching implications. To illuminate, as commented by American physicist Richard Feynman in his famous time capsule wisdom:

“If all scientific knowledge were lost in a cataclysm, the single statement that I would propose to best pass on our understanding of the world, so to preserve the most information for the next generations of creatures, would be: ‘all things are made of atoms’.”

The extrapolation of this, up to the human scale, namely that:

“All humans are made of atoms.”

is the more far-reaching statement with which to pass on to subsequent generations. That humans are little particles (made of atoms), which go by various names: human molecules, human atoms, human atomisms, human particles, human chemicals, or human elements, etc., that move around, attracting each other when in near vicinity, but repelling upon being squeezed together in too close a manner. In this one sentence, one sees that there is an enormous amount of information about the human world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied. In this perspective, the following table gives a gist outline of human molecular theory:

Modern Human Molecular Theory
1919 George Carey (1845-1924)
American physician Definitively stated that: "man's body is a chemical formula in operation."
2000 Robert Sterner (c.1958-)
American limnologist In their ecological stoichiometric studies of elemental composition variations in related species of small fresh water organisms, Sterner and Elser initiated modern "human molecular theory" by calculating the following 22-element empirical molecular formula for one person:

H375,000,000 O132,000,000 C85,700,000 N6,430,000 Ca1,500,000 P1,020,000 S206,000 Na183,000 K177,000

Cl127,000 Mg40,000 Si38,600 Fe2,680 Zn2,110 Cu76 I14 Mn13 F13 Cr7 Se4 Mo3 Co1

which they specifically defined as the chemical formula for one 'human molecule', thus giving, for the first time, experimentally measured proof or derivation that a human is a 'molecule' comprised of a specific number of operational atoms.
James Elser (1959-)
American limnologist
2002 Libb Thims (c.1975-)
American electrochemical engineers In his human thermodynamic studies, particularly surrounding efforts to understand how the spontaneity criterion applies to human relationships, in 2002 calculated the following 26-element empirical molecular formula:

H2.5E9 O9.7E8 C4.9E8 N4.7E7 P9.0E6 Ca8.9E6 K2.0E6 Na1.9E6 S1.6E6 Cl1.3E6 Mg3.0E5 Fe5.5E4

F5.4E4 Zn1.2E4 Si9.1E3 Cu1.2E3 B7.1E2 Cr98 Mn93 Ni87 Se65 Sn64 I60 Mo19 Co17 V

and in 2007 wrote the first textbook on the behavior and reactions of human molecules; and in 2008, after becoming aware of the earlier work of Sterner and Elser, wrote the first booklet on history of the concept of the human molecule.
2005 Author (dates)
New Scientist writer In 2005, an anon author of a New Scientist article entitled “That’s Life”, gave the following 12-element empirical formula:
H15,750 N310 06,500 C2,250 Ca63 P48 K15 S15 Na10 Cl6 Mg3 Fe

This attempt at what the author calls "one's chemical formula", however, is lacking in 14 elements shown to have active role in the internal functioning of a person.

Modern Human Molecular Theory
1919	George Carey (1845-1924) American physician	Definitively stated that: "man's body is a chemical formula in operation."
2000	Robert Sterner (c.1958-) American limnologist	In their ecological stoichiometric studies of elemental composition variations in related species of small fresh water organisms, Sterner and Elser initiated modern "human molecular theory" by calculating the following 22-element empirical molecular formula for one person: H375,000,000 O132,000,000 C85,700,000 N6,430,000 Ca1,500,000 P1,020,000 S206,000 Na183,000 K177,000 Cl127,000 Mg40,000 Si38,600 Fe2,680 Zn2,110 Cu76 I14 Mn13 F13 Cr7 Se4 Mo3 Co1 which they specifically defined as the chemical formula for one 'human molecule', thus giving, for the first time, experimentally measured proof or derivation that a human is a 'molecule' comprised of a specific number of operational atoms.
James Elser (1959-) American limnologist
2002	Libb Thims (c.1975-) American electrochemical engineers	In his human thermodynamic studies, particularly surrounding efforts to understand how the spontaneity criterion applies to human relationships, in 2002 calculated the following 26-element empirical molecular formula: H2.5E9 O9.7E8 C4.9E8 N4.7E7 P9.0E6 Ca8.9E6 K2.0E6 Na1.9E6 S1.6E6 Cl1.3E6 Mg3.0E5 Fe5.5E4 F5.4E4 Zn1.2E4 Si9.1E3 Cu1.2E3 B7.1E2 Cr98 Mn93 Ni87 Se65 Sn64 I60 Mo19 Co17 V and in 2007 wrote the first textbook on the behavior and reactions of human molecules; and in 2008, after becoming aware of the earlier work of Sterner and Elser, wrote the first booklet on history of the concept of the human molecule.
2005	Author (dates) New Scientist writer	In 2005, an anon author of a New Scientist article entitled “That’s Life”, gave the following 12-element empirical formula: H15,750 N310 06,500 C2,250 Ca63 P48 K15 S15 Na10 Cl6 Mg3 Fe This attempt at what the author calls "one's chemical formula", however, is lacking in 14 elements shown to have active role in the internal functioning of a person.

The three subjects concerning the study of human molecules include: human chemistry, human physics, and human thermodynamics—that can be grouped under the umbrella subject term "hmolscience".

Objectors

See main: People are not molecules

The following is a listing of thinkers known to take a stance publicly on objection or opposition commentary to the position of defining a human as a molecule:

Person ≠ Molecule

as defined in the context of modern human molecular theory, the human molecular hypothesis, and or the 2002 Sterner-Elser publication of the human molecular formula:

Date
Person
View
1928 Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968)
Russian-born American sociologist
1953 Robert Heilbroner (1919-2005)
American economist
1964 Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)
Russian-born American zoologist “Man is not a molecule, and though he is an animal he is a very special kind of animal.” [5]
2005 Steve Fuller (1959-)
American philosopher and sociologist “I am not a molecule.” (New Scientist article)
2007 Omar Lizardo (c.1975-)
American sociologist “A human is not a molecule is not a power plant is not a neuron is not a city. Repeat after me…” [4]
2009 Bruce Bathurst (c.1940-)
American geological thermodynamicist “I'm not a molecule.” (Hmolpedia thread)
2009 Philip Moriarty (c.1968-)
Irish physicist “[The view that] a human is made of lots of atoms. Therefore a human is just a big molecule. Big molecules will behave just like small molecules. Therefore I can apply all thermodynamic principles to human 'molecules' [is a] laughable central premise.” (Moriarty-Thims debate: #66)
2010 Lubos Motl (1973-)
Czech-American theoretical physicist “Human beings are not molecules, they are composed of molecules, but we aren't giant molecules.”(YouTube forum post)
2010 Marcin Borkowski (1963-) Polish analytical chemist “Humans are not molecules, they are complex objects composed of many molecules.”(ChemistryForums.com post)

Date	Person	View
1928	Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968) Russian-born American sociologist
1953	Robert Heilbroner (1919-2005) American economist
1964	Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) Russian-born American zoologist	“Man is not a molecule, and though he is an animal he is a very special kind of animal.” [5]
2005	Steve Fuller (1959-) American philosopher and sociologist	“I am not a molecule.” (New Scientist article)
2007	Omar Lizardo (c.1975-) American sociologist	“A human is not a molecule is not a power plant is not a neuron is not a city. Repeat after me…” [4]
2009	Bruce Bathurst (c.1940-) American geological thermodynamicist	“I'm not a molecule.” (Hmolpedia thread)
2009	Philip Moriarty (c.1968-) Irish physicist	“[The view that] a human is made of lots of atoms. Therefore a human is just a big molecule. Big molecules will behave just like small molecules. Therefore I can apply all thermodynamic principles to human 'molecules' [is a] laughable central premise.” (Moriarty-Thims debate: #66)
2010	Lubos Motl (1973-) Czech-American theoretical physicist	“Human beings are not molecules, they are composed of molecules, but we aren't giant molecules.”(YouTube forum post)
2010	Marcin Borkowski (1963-) Polish analytical chemist	“Humans are not molecules, they are complex objects composed of many molecules.”(ChemistryForums.com post)

Cladwell and Fuller are unique among this group in going out of their way to actually publish thought out articles and or chapters to refute the “human molecule” position.

Ambivalent objectors | Retractors
The following is a listing of known thinkers to object to the position of defining a human as a molecule, recant their position, and or give ambivalent commentary on the matter:

Date
Person
View
1957 May Brodbeck (1917-1983)
American chemist and philosopher “People are not like molecules in a gas. Some are different from others and some have more effect upon society than others.” [6]
1992 Bruce Caldwell (1952-)
American economics historian Wrote a commentary article on Alan Nelson's essay "Human Molecules", in the opening paragraph of which he states: “attempts at reductionism within the physical sciences founder because of a failure to satisfy the translatability condition.”

Update (2012): in retrospect analysis of his article and the previous statement, Caldwell clarifies: "The sentence quoted by you from my article was a restatement by me of Nelson's position. It was not my position. So it is wrong to characterize me as a 'human molecular theory objector'." [3]

2011 Jeff Tuhtan (1979-)
American civil-ecological engineer "Stating that the human is a macromolecule in the same way as some lipid or protein seems to be more of an analogy to me." (Hmolpedia thread: #7)

Update (2012): "’When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest." (Anonymous).’ If you strictly define a molecule as a structure of 2 or more atoms, then yes, I undoubtedly must be a molecule. However, between gentlemen, I would prefer to be called a system.” (Hmolpedia thread: #1)

Date	Person	View
1957	May Brodbeck (1917-1983) American chemist and philosopher	“People are not like molecules in a gas. Some are different from others and some have more effect upon society than others.” [6]
1992	Bruce Caldwell (1952-) American economics historian	Wrote a commentary article on Alan Nelson's essay "Human Molecules", in the opening paragraph of which he states: “attempts at reductionism within the physical sciences founder because of a failure to satisfy the translatability condition.” Update (2012): in retrospect analysis of his article and the previous statement, Caldwell clarifies: "The sentence quoted by you from my article was a restatement by me of Nelson's position. It was not my position. So it is wrong to characterize me as a 'human molecular theory objector'." [3]
2011	Jeff Tuhtan (1979-) American civil-ecological engineer	"Stating that the human is a macromolecule in the same way as some lipid or protein seems to be more of an analogy to me." (Hmolpedia thread: #7) Update (2012): "’When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest." (Anonymous).’ If you strictly define a molecule as a structure of 2 or more atoms, then yes, I undoubtedly must be a molecule. However, between gentlemen, I would prefer to be called a system.” (Hmolpedia thread: #1)

Cladwell and Fuller are unique among this group in going out of their way to actually publish thought out articles and or chapters to refute the “human molecule” position.

See also
● Molecular theory

References
1. Sales, Jean. (1789). De la Philosophie de la Nature: ou Traité de morale pour le genre humain, tiré de la philosophie et fondé sur la nature (The Philosophy of Nature: Treatise on Human Moral Nature, from Philosophy and Nature), Volume 4 (molécules humaines, pg. 281). Publisher.
2. Sterner, Robert W. and Elser, James J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (chapter one) (pg. 3-7, 47, 135). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3. Email communication with Libb Thims (13 Jun 2012).
4. (a) Lizardo, Omar. (2007). “A Network Theory of Everything”, OrgTheory.net.
(b) Omar Lizardo (about) – OrgTheory.net.
(c) Omar Lizardo (faculty) – University of Notre Dame.
5. Dobzhansky, Theodosius. (1964). “Evolution: Organic and Superorganic” , Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (pgs. 2-4), May; article adapted from the Rockefeller Institute Review, April 1963.
6. (a) Brodbeck, May. (1958). “Methodological Individualisms: Definition and Reduction” (pg. 21), Philosophy of Science, 25(1):#-; Jan; Received May 1957.
(b) May Brodbeck (about) – Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota.
(c) May Brodbeck (about) – Press-Citizen-Media.com.