Yes. I'm also familiar with the term "non sequitur", which is what you're engaging in now.
You are the one who proposed a paper where someone had to interfere in order to enable replication
No, I am the one pointing out that your assumptions are invalid by showing you an example of a self-replicator that is much smaller than the one you propose. Hence, your assumption of 29,000,000 as the minimum length is unwarranted.
A model is supposed to represent the reality of the subject, otherwise its just an exercise in mental gymnastics.
Ridiculous. A model is supposed to faithfully reflect the aspect of reality we are interested in studying, not reflect every single aspect of the real thing. By your "logic", such as it is, studying the process of nuclear fusion tells us nothing about what happens inside stars, because neither thermonuclear explosions nor fusion reactors are nearly as big as a real star.
Try again.
Okay, I'll agree to a smaller chain if you agree to insert a designer such as the ones in your example into the discussion. That's the point.
Your quote: Try not to assume that every quality that the model possesses is also possessed by the actual thing being examined.
If, you agree that you reversed your sentence construction, there is no issue.
Too easy my dear General...