The point I was making is the RBC body can survive without a nucleus. However, the nucleus is dead in the water.
Well, the RBC does not survive very long, so, it is just as dead in the water without the nucleus as the nucleus is without the cell. To have an activity called survival, both the cell and a nucleus are required, not one or the other. This false claim you make here, follows all the way to your last comment, where you conclude with a false premise that life places DNA either before or after the potential of the cell.
From that observation, I would infer that a cell body is more alive than its nucleus
Well, seeing how your observation is incorrect, can you see how this conclusion is silly ? The cell is not more alive if it has no ability to survive and reproduce over time because it has no nucleus. Your argument below follows from this false understanding you have of the relationship of the cell to the nucleus, how they interact.
or else a separated nucleus would not only live, showing all signs of life, but would become a self replicator, rebuilding another cell body. Has this ever been observed?
No, this is silly. Why would you expect a nucleus separated from a cell to show all signs of life ? You miss a very important point, life by definition requires BOTH a cell that has a boundary (thus an inside and outside) plus some way to reproduce (which is where the RNA and DNA come into place). Long before there was a nucleus, there were isolated RNA (first) and DNA (latter) molecules within the early single cell forms of life. So, can you see why it is silly for you to suggest that an isolated RNA or DNA molecule separated from a cell environment can show signs of life floating in the ocean ?
I understand tradition has the DNA as the center piece of life, but RBC don't go along with the program.
No, the RBC is a specialized cell that is formed from what you can think of as a RBC stem cell (mostly within bone marrow) and that stem cell reproduces to form the RBC using DNA. Therefore, the RBC most surely does go along with the DNA program.
RBC currently develop from stem cells within the bone marrow. The bone marrow is the external environment, which tweaks the stem cell bodies
Bone marrow does not tweak stem cells. Look in the dictionary, to tweak something means to seize and pull with a sudden jerk and usually a twist. HB, this is a biology thread, you need to use biological terms to explain what you are trying to get across.
...which tweaks the DNA, eventually ejecting the hard drive.
Again, the RBC does not tweak (seize and pull) the DNA, and then push it out of the cell, the way the bouncer pulls the drunk out of the bar. HB, do you not understand that the DNA function was lost from higher vertebrates in stages over time due to the actions of select genes being repressed, there was no other type of "external potential" that you keep bringing up.
The DNA is used and discarded, since it is no longer needed.
The DNA genetic function was repressed, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS NO LONGER NEEDED, but because those RBC that did not have DNA taking up space could pact more hemoglobin per unit area and thus carry more O2, a trait that was adaptive as vertebrates evolved into early mammals.
Hypothetically, say a RBC could replicate. I am not saying it does, but follow the logic.
OK, in fact, I agree it is possible that some evolutionary lines of very early vertebrates (as they transitioned from invertebrates) may have had RBC that could replicate. OK, what would we predict ?
The hierarchy begins within the external environment surrounding these autonomous RBC. This potential goes into their cell bodies, to their DNA.
By potential I assume you mean the O2 concentration potential outside the RBC ? OK, yes, by diffusion O2 would enter into the RBC. But, no, this potential does not "go to their DNA" ! This is where your argument fails, there is no external potential going to the DNA. The O2 attaches to HEMOGLOBIN molecule, a different type of molecule that DNA. And, logic demands that if this reproducing RBC has a nucleus taking up space, then less O2 can attach to hemoglobin than if the cell did not have DNA.
The blood supply, which would contain these hypothetical replicating RBC, is part of the external environment that will seen by the rest of the cells of the body, due to the blood circulation.
Yes, the blood supply is external to the RBC, you have this correct. And, if by "seen" you mean that the blood and RBC are circulated to all the other types of cells (such as muscle, skin, etc.), you are correct again.
This variable external environment, due to the hypothetical RBC cell cycles, will externally impact all the cell bodies, which will tweak their DNA.
No, no, no....the blood and the RBC that travel to the muscle cells do not "tweak" (pull and twist) the DNA within the skin cells. What happens is that the RBC release the O2 and it travels into the muscle cells and enters the MITOCHONDRIA because the muscle cells need the O2 to help create energy in the form of ATP molecules. The ATP is made within the mitochondria, not the DNA, so if there is any tweaking going on, it is going on within the mitochondria (but of course there is no tweaking at all, again, this is a biology thread, you must learn to use proper biological terms).
These tweaks change the external potential that is in contact with the blood, due to cell interfaces.
No, it is not called "tweak", the process is called O2 diffusion across the cell membranes (from high concentration within RBC to low concentration within muscle cells).
This alters the external potential seen by the RBC. We have two dependent, yet competing external potentials, with the DNA at the bottom of the potential tree. The final result was RBC replication stopping, but only after other differentiations.
No, the DNA is not at the bottom of any type of tweaking potential tree. The RBC replication stopped because those species with a gene mutation that stopped DNA replication would have a survival advantage because they could have more O2 diffuse into muscle cells and thus form more ATP energy as vertebrates evolved into mammals.
Female gamete cells do something similar to modern RBC, in that they extrude half the nucleus. Based on the above logic...
There is nothing logical, your claim is false. The stem cells that form gametes do not "do" anything similar to stem cells that form RBC in mammals. Gametes carry 1/2 of the species chromosomes because one from each sex must unite to form a new individual. RBC lose 100% of their chromosomes (in mammals) because they can more efficiently transport O2. One outcome relates to reproduction of a new individual, the other relates to keeping the individual alive so that it can reproduce.
...an external environmental potential, tweaks these cell bodies, which tweaks their DNA. After the DNA is used, the cell body ejects part of the DNA like a bad hard drive. We now need another external potential; sperm cell.
Where your hypothesis fails is that an external environmental potential that tweaks gametes does not exist, the only global potential of the body systems concerning gametes (egg cells and sprem cells) is the fact that each individual of a sexual species must survive and reproduce so that the species can survive. There are many advantages to sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction dealing with concept of information variety.
Again if one assumes the DNA is leading, the logic is different, since random changes, drift and selective advantage will apply. One would assume that replicating RBC can only occur in a random mutation way, and since it offers no advantage in the context of modern cells, that means it would have not persisted or had any impact.
But, evolution theory does not assume that DNA is leading or not leading, the cell needs DNA, the DNA needs the cell, neither is primary over the other, and here we see exactly why your hypothesis is false, because it is based on the following false either-or conclusion you make to end your post
The debate is fundamentally based on which premise is correct, DNA leadership or DNA dependency
No, there is no debate, you demand an either-or situation where none exists. DNA both depends on the protection given to it by the boundary of the cell, and provides the genetic information required to help keep that cell boundary alive so that it can continue to exist (reproduce) over time.