OOL 'news'

[Rolf]

The lovely, new Pandas Thumb site has a post about a subject related to the
problem creationists have with the proposition that the origins of life is a
scientific, not a theological issue.

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 22:52:06 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No doubt IDiots will just LOL it away.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

The Cell membrane, irreducible complexity

Cell Membranes, origins through natural mechanisms, or design ? 1

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2128-membrane-structure#3798

The Interdependency of Lipid Membranes and Membrane Proteins 2
The cell membrane contains various types of proteins, including ion channel proteins, proton pumps, G proteins, and enzymes. These membrane proteins function cooperatively to allow ions to penetrate the lipid bilayer. The interdependency of lipid membranes and membrane proteins suggests that lipid bilayers and membrane proteins co-evolved together with membrane bioenergetics.

The nonsense of this assertion is evident. How could the membrane proteins co-evolve, if they had to be manufactured in the machinery , protected by the cell membrane ?

The cell membrane contains various types of proteins, including ion channel proteins, proton pumps, G proteins, and enzymes. These membrane proteins function cooperatively to allow ions to penetrate the lipid bilayer.

The ER and Golgi apparatus together constitute the endomembrane compartment in the cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells. The endomembrane compartment is a major site of lipid synthesis, and the ER is where not only lipids are synthesized, but membrane-bound proteins and secretory proteins are also made.

So in order to make cell membranes, the Endoplasmic Recticulum is required. But also the Golgi Apparatus, the peroxysome, and the mitochondria. But these only function, if protected and encapsulated in the cell membrane. What came first, the cell membrane, or the endoplasmic recticulum ? This is one of many other catch22 situations in the cell, which indicate that the cell could not emerge in a stepwise gradual manner, as proponents of natural mechanisms want to make us believe.

Not only is the cell membrane intricate and complex (and certainly not random), but it has tuning parameters such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. It is another example of a sophisticated biological design about which evolutionists can only speculate. Random mutations must have luckily assembled molecular mechanisms which sense environmental challenges and respond to them by altering the phospholipid population in the membrane in just the right way. Such designs are tremendously helpful so of course they would have been preserved by natural selection. It is yet another example of how silly evolutionary theory is in light of scientific facts.

[jillery]

Jack Szostak has been using unguided natural processes to create
semi-permeable bilayered lipid membranes for some years, sans
endoplasmic reticulum. You should have read the article Rolf cited
before you posted. It might have saved you from making such a fool of
yourself.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vd2a4ct4gckcn8cgp...@4ax.com...

Some people are their own worst enemy.

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

yep, but in nature, the endoplasimc reticulum is required.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/4/16 5:35 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-3, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 22:52:06 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The lovely, new Pandas Thumb site has a post about a subject related to the
>>> problem creationists have with the proposition that the origins of life is a
>>> scientific, not a theological issue.
>>>
>>> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html
>>
>>
>> No doubt IDiots will just LOL it away.
>

> The Cell membrane, irreducible complexity

> [snip irrelevancy]

Please note that extreme complexity and "irreducible complexity" are
evidence *against* design.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

haha. Really ??!!

[Glenn]

<grassoempreen...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:44fe6511-1740-43e4...@googlegroups.com...

Mark is a funny guy!

[Jonathan]

So science has solved the question of how did
life first begin?

Wonderful news!

Tell me, exactly where, when and how the first
life form was created? And what was it's name?

A picture would be nice too, even one of those
computer generated ones~

Otherwise, it's still a mystery and that means
philosophy (religion) is the appropriate
discipline for this question.

Philosophy is for questions hard science
can't answer, and creation happens to
be such a question.

So tell me, when will science answer the above
questions about creation? What breakthrough
is needed?

If 'I don't know' is your answer, and it is
the answer, then please save your ridicule
for science, as it's pretending to have
answers it doesn't have.


Types and Forms of Emergence


The process of emergence deals with the fundamental
question: “how does an entity come into existence?”

In a process of emergence we observe something (for
instance the appearance of order or organization) and
ask how this is possible, since we assume causality:
every effect should have a cause. The surprising aspect
in a process of emergence is the observation of an effect
without an apparent cause.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf

[Ray Martinez]

Comment epitomizes subjectivity.

Ray

[jillery]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 04:11:50 -0800 (PST),

>yep, but in nature, the endoplasimc reticulum is required.

Since Szostak's experiments are part of nature, your statement above
is obviously incorrect.

[jillery]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:57:25 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/4/2016 4:52 PM, Rolf wrote:
>
>> The lovely, new Pandas Thumb site has a post about a subject related to the
>> problem creationists have with the proposition that the origins of life is a
>> scientific, not a theological issue.
>>
>> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html
>>
>>
>
>
>So science has solved the question of how did
>life first begin?

You really should read Rolf's cited article before you post. It might
have saved you from making a fool of yourself.

>Wonderful news!
>
>Tell me, exactly where, when and how the first
>life form was created? And what was it's name?

Then again, you seem determined to make a fool of yourself. So enjoy
playing with yourself.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/5/16 11:18 AM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:40:01 PM UTC-3, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/4/16 5:35 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-3, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 22:52:06 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The lovely, new Pandas Thumb site has a post about a subject related to the
>>>>> problem creationists have with the proposition that the origins of life is a
>>>>> scientific, not a theological issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No doubt IDiots will just LOL it away.
>>>
>>> The Cell membrane, irreducible complexity
>>> [snip irrelevancy]
>>
>> Please note that extreme complexity and "irreducible complexity" are
>> evidence *against* design.
>>

> haha. Really ??!!

But of course. Irreducible complexity was predicted, in 1918, to arise
on the basis of evolutionary considerations. And complexity is
something that actual designers actively try to minimize, for a number
of good reasons.

The only evidence creationists have that life looks designed is that
both life and some designs have moving parts. Other than that, the
argument runs, "This is way too complicated for me to figure out how it
was made. And it looks so unlike anything a human was made that
probably nobody else can figure it out, either. Therefore, its origin
must be magic. No, wait. The word 'magic' won't convince anyone;
better call it intelligent design."

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:37:34 -0800, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 12/5/16 11:18 AM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:40:01 PM UTC-3, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 12/4/16 5:35 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-3, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 22:52:06 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The lovely, new Pandas Thumb site has a post about a subject related to the
>>>>>> problem creationists have with the proposition that the origins of life is a
>>>>>> scientific, not a theological issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt IDiots will just LOL it away.
>>>>
>>>> The Cell membrane, irreducible complexity
>>>> [snip irrelevancy]
>>>
>>> Please note that extreme complexity and "irreducible complexity" are
>>> evidence *against* design.
>>>
>> haha. Really ??!!
>
>But of course. Irreducible complexity was predicted, in 1918, to arise
>on the basis of evolutionary considerations. And complexity is
>something that actual designers actively try to minimize, for a number
>of good reasons.

Known as the KISS principle.

[Jonathan]

On 12/5/2016 4:46 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:57:25 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2016 4:52 PM, Rolf wrote:
>>
>>> The lovely, new Pandas Thumb site has a post about a subject related to the
>>> problem creationists have with the proposition that the origins of life is a
>>> scientific, not a theological issue.
>>>
>>> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So science has solved the question of how did
>> life first begin?
>
>
> You really should read Rolf's cited article before you post. It might
> have saved you from making a fool of yourself.
>

I did, it claims a plausible model for a possible first step.
That's not proof and not evidence, it's speculation.
And speculation based on my hobby of self organization
and emergence, btw.

Pity those terms are above your head



s

[Jonathan]

Part of nature? What does that mean? So is a frog.
Show us one of these things actually exists in nature?

You can't. So it's speculation, a model of what....could
have existed, maybe, that might explain what evolved.

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:49:01 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/5/2016 4:46 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:57:25 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/4/2016 4:52 PM, Rolf wrote:
>>>
>>>> The lovely, new Pandas Thumb site has a post about a subject related to the
>>>> problem creationists have with the proposition that the origins of life is a
>>>> scientific, not a theological issue.
>>>>
>>>> https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So science has solved the question of how did
>>> life first begin?
>>
>>
>> You really should read Rolf's cited article before you post. It might
>> have saved you from making a fool of yourself.
>>
>
>
>
>
>I did,

Of course, reading implies one should take the time to actually
understand what is read.

>it claims a plausible model for a possible first step.
>That's not proof and not evidence, it's speculation.
>And speculation based on my hobby of self organization
>and emergence, btw.
>
>Pity those terms are above your head

Conflating "plausible" and "possible" with "solved" is no way to
demonstrate your linguistic expertise. Once again, you're determined
to illustrate Dunning-Kruger.

[jillery]

Are you really challenging that frogs don't exist?

>You can't. So it's speculation, a model of what....could
>have existed, maybe, that might explain what evolved.

Do you even read what you write before you post it?