Zip It

[Glenn]

"Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."

Read the rest at
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/

Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?

This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.

[RonO]

Switch scam combined with god-of-the-gaps-denial do you have anything
better than this obfuscation and denial junk? What about using the Top
Six to build your best alternative. Guys like Denton and Behe have
already done it, and if you come up with something other than what they
claim, you most likely did it wrong and have to start over.

Why isn't building anything an option? Switch scam obfuscation and
denial is stupid when you have nothing better. Really, what is the
IDiot alternative to this article about membranes. The research that
they are commenting on was done on existing lifeforms. Membranes are
very complex structures at this time. The example of the mitochondrial
membrane is that it is composed of 80% protein at this time. Membranes
around the cell have plenty of proteins and things stuck in them. Plain
lipid bilayers do form spontaneously into vesicles. Do you have
anything better than that to demonstrate how membranes first formed?
Really, we do know that vesicles form spontaneously when you put lipids
into solution. Why do you not have anything better? What good is this
denial argument in light of that reality?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 5/27/2021 5:10 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
> >
> > Read the rest at
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
> >
> > Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
> > Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
> >
> > This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
> >
> Switch scam

Nope.

[Dale]

Makes me think of Occam's Razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

it is much easier to explain creation with "the most common ancestor" ...

than "the least common ancestor"?

--
Mystery -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[Dale]

On 5/27/2021 8:13 PM, RonO wrote:
> What about using the Top Six

what about "The Top One"?

the "most common ancestor" ...

not the "least common ancestor"?

[RonO]

Snipping and running in denial is a stupid and senseless thing to do.
What kind of future as an IDiot do you have?

REPOST what Glenn doesn't want to understand about his obfuscation and
denial switch scam junk:

Switch scam combined with god-of-the-gaps-denial do you have anything
better than this obfuscation and denial junk? What about using the Top
Six to build your best alternative. Guys like Denton and Behe have
already done it, and if you come up with something other than what they
claim, you most likely did it wrong and have to start over.

Why isn't building anything an option? Switch scam obfuscation and
denial is stupid when you have nothing better. Really, what is the
IDiot alternative to this article about membranes. The research that
they are commenting on was done on existing lifeforms. Membranes are
very complex structures at this time. The example of the mitochondrial
membrane is that it is composed of 80% protein at this time. Membranes
around the cell have plenty of proteins and things stuck in them. Plain
lipid bilayers do form spontaneously into vesicles. Do you have
anything better than that to demonstrate how membranes first formed?
Really, we do know that vesicles form spontaneously when you put lipids
into solution. Why do you not have anything better? What good is this
denial argument in light of that reality?

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 7:21:04 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 5/27/2021 7:56 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2021 5:10 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
> >>>
> >>> Read the rest at
> >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
> >>>
> >>> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
> >>> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
> >>>
> >>> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
> >>>
> >> Switch scam
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> Snipping

Yep.

[RonO]

On 5/27/2021 9:04 PM, Dale wrote:
> On 5/27/2021 8:13 PM, RonO wrote:
>> What about using the Top Six
>
> what about "The Top One"?
>
> the "most common ancestor" ...
>
> not the "least common ancestor"?
>

What would it be like if you knew what you were talking about. The Top
one is the Big Bang.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Sewell drops it to #6 and makes fine tuning his number 1.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 May 2021 22:04:00 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>..."most common ancestor" ...
>
....has zero meaning. I'm sure this has been pointed out to
you in the recent past.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 7:31:04 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2021 22:04:00 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
> >..."most common ancestor" ...
> >
> ....has zero meaning. I'm sure this has been pointed out to
> you in the recent past.
> >

Without context, many expressions have 'no meaning". But actually, all do have some meaning.

ooh ooh, Nature with Graur:

"That is, the normality assumption of Mendez et al2 results in the time-bending possibility that the most common ancestor of all the Y chromosomes in the world has yet to be born."

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2013303

[Dale]

is that "most common" to all things?

[Glenn]

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> On 5/27/2021 5:10 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
> >
> > Read the rest at
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
> >
> > Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
> > Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
> >
> > This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
> >
> Switch scam

You are part of the crowd that makes talk.origins a hellhole.

You were almost totally irresponsive to the OP, appeared not to read the article, and when you did say something, you tried to make it appear that the lipid bilayer is no big deal, and didn't even respond to the claim that these membranes must protect the inner part of the cell, bring things in and out of the cell, and repair breaks when needed. Mitochondria reside within cells. All cells are contained within a lipid bilayer, which is essential for survival of all cells. If mechanisms,which are themselves very complex, do not repair damage to this even more complex outer layer a cell will die.

You could have, and should have, were you truly interesting in discussing or not. you'd have also read the cited literature. You didn't respond to my questions, or to my conclusion. Instead, see your first words retained above.

You've been posting the exact same rant filled language for many years. The same stuff, over and over again. You reference your own stuff as if it is evidence of the same stuff you post. The only thing that behavior serves here is to feed your delusional obsessive fantasies. You don't engage in reason, and you can't be reasoned with. Even other evolutionists that challenge you for even small disagreements get bitten. You're toxic.

[RonO]

Do you ever get tired of lying to yourself about reality? Why not learn
something? It is just some very basic information about membranes, and
lipid bilayers and you can't deal with it. It is very short, but it is
basically all you need to know in order to determine that your
IDiot/creationist source is giving you the mushroom treatment and you
can't help yourself and have to lap it up. Have you ever gotten
anything from evolutionnews or any other ID perp source of creationist
propaganda that ever amounted to anything that you would want to build
your alternative out of or support your religious beliefs with?
Anything? You obviously know that you never got any ID science out of
them because you have resorted to the switch scam nonsense that the ID
perps tell you has nothing to do with IDiocy. What does this membrane
denial have to do with intelligent design? Why do the ID perps claim
that this type of junk has nothing to do with ID when the sell it to the
rubes instead of any ID science when they run the bait and switch?

REPOST of REPOST:

Snipping and running in denial is a stupid and senseless thing to do.
What kind of future as an IDiot do you have?

REPOST what Glenn doesn't want to understand about his obfuscation and
denial switch scam junk:
Switch scam combined with god-of-the-gaps-denial do you have anything
better than this obfuscation and denial junk? What about using the Top
Six to build your best alternative. Guys like Denton and Behe have
already done it, and if you come up with something other than what they
claim, you most likely did it wrong and have to start over.

Why isn't building anything an option? Switch scam obfuscation and
denial is stupid when you have nothing better. Really, what is the
IDiot alternative to this article about membranes. The research that
they are commenting on was done on existing lifeforms. Membranes are
very complex structures at this time. The example of the mitochondrial
membrane is that it is composed of 80% protein at this time. Membranes
around the cell have plenty of proteins and things stuck in them. Plain
lipid bilayers do form spontaneously into vesicles. Do you have
anything better than that to demonstrate how membranes first formed?
Really, we do know that vesicles form spontaneously when you put lipids
into solution. Why do you not have anything better? What good is this
denial argument in light of that reality?
END REPOST:

END REPOST of REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Contact the Discovery Institute and apply for a fellowship. $40,000 to
$60,000 dollars a year if they want to give you the money. Tell them
that you want to write a book about it.

There was a poster that went by REMINE that got a Discovery Institute
fellowship, so it isn't impossible, and REMINE may have been more out of
it than you. The Discovery Institute was so embarassed by what they had
done that they never listed him as a fellow, but they, at one time,
admitted that indeed he was, just as REMINE had claimed on TO.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 5/28/2021 12:48 AM, Glenn wrote:
> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 5/27/2021 5:10 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
>>>
>>> Read the rest at
>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
>>>
>>> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
>>> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
>>>
>>> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
>>>
>> Switch scam
>
> You are part of the crowd that makes talk.origins a hellhole.

Says the IDiot that can't do anything except put up switch scam nonsense
that the ID perps have claimed has nothing to do with IDiocy. It is
only obfuscation and denial stupidity to keep the rubes as ignorant as
possible.

>
> You were almost totally irresponsive to the OP, appeared not to read the article, and when you did say something, you tried to make it appear that the lipid bilayer is no big deal, and didn't even respond to the claim that these membranes must protect the inner part of the cell, bring things in and out of the cell, and repair breaks when needed. Mitochondria reside within cells. All cells are contained within a lipid bilayer, which is essential for survival of all cells. If mechanisms,which are themselves very complex, do not repair damage to this even more complex outer layer a cell will die.
>
> You could have, and should have, were you truly interesting in discussing or not. you'd have also read the cited literature. You didn't respond to my questions, or to my conclusion. Instead, see your first words retained above.
>
> You've been posting the exact same rant filled language for many years. The same stuff, over and over again. You reference your own stuff as if it is evidence of the same stuff you post. The only thing that behavior serves here is to feed your delusional obsessive fantasies. You don't engage in reason, and you can't be reasoned with. Even other evolutionists that challenge you for even small disagreements get bitten. You're toxic.
>

Why did you have to snip out what I wrote in order to lie about it?

REPOST:

Switch scam combined with god-of-the-gaps-denial do you have anything
better than this obfuscation and denial junk? What about using the Top
Six to build your best alternative. Guys like Denton and Behe have
already done it, and if you come up with something other than what they
claim, you most likely did it wrong and have to start over.

Why isn't building anything an option? Switch scam obfuscation and
denial is stupid when you have nothing better. Really, what is the

IDiot alternative to this article about membranes? The research that

they are commenting on was done on existing lifeforms. Membranes are
very complex structures at this time. The example of the mitochondrial
membrane is that it is composed of 80% protein at this time. Membranes
around the cell have plenty of proteins and things stuck in them. Plain
lipid bilayers do form spontaneously into vesicles. Do you have
anything better than that to demonstrate how membranes first formed?
Really, we do know that vesicles form spontaneously when you put lipids
into solution. Why do you not have anything better? What good is this
denial argument in light of that reality?

END REPOST:

Why did you snip out me discussing the meterial only to lie and claim
that it was something that I did not do?

You are the one that doesn't want to understand anything about what you
put up. That is why no IDiot likes the switch scam. It is what they
have to understand in order to figure out if there really is some type
of denial argument to make, and like you they don't want to understand
what they are in denial of. Face the facts that you didn't even realize
that you were putting up fine tuning god-of-the-gaps stupidity, and you
have been running from it for over 3 years in another recent thread.
Ignorance of what you post of that magnitude is really sad.

If you want to discuss the material, demonstrate that you understand it
enough to discuss it. Don't run from information that you don't want to
know because it makes your argument look stupid. The membrane argument
was always stupid. If the first membranes were not leaky the first
cells that depended on them would starve to death. Think about that for
just a momment. Lifeforms with membranes have likely existed for over 3
billion years, and membranes have become very sophisticated. Systems to
pass things back and forth through a cell membrane have evolved over the
last 3 billion years, but no one with half a brain thinks that they
always existed. Why don't you try to get Behe or Denton to explain it
to you. Why are Behe and Denton only interested in perpetuating the
denial?

Think about why you have run from the Top Six for over 3 years, and why
the ID perps have done nothing positive with them for that time.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/-wvXPAxHeho/m/SWm2-M_rBAAJ

Snipping and running isn't going to change reality. Putting up the
denial stupidity that you have put up for the last few months is stupid
and dishonest.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

[RonO]

Why do you believe that? What is your evidence? Speculation by the
creationist news site that you have never gotten anything that you could
trust from is something that you can't rely on for anything. Just put
up one thing that you ever got from the creationist news site at the
Discovery Institute that was verfiable, and could actually be used for
what the ID perps were using it for. Go for it. How are you going to
verify this membrane junk?

The first cell membranes had to do a pretty poor job of being an
enclosed sack or how would things get in and out? It is nice for
keeping things in, but just attaching to the lipid bilayer would keep
essential components together even as the membranes opened and closed.
If the membrane were too good the initial self replicators would have
probably been better off attaching themselves to the outside of the
lipid bubble. They needed access to components that would have been
floating around in solution.

Start looking for the Discovery Institute IDiocy that you have ever been
able to trust and go back to as something worth building on. In 25
years there has to be something, but what is left in the Top Six? IC
got dropped out. Meyer's Cambrian explosion junk got dropped out. The
new IDiot law of thermodynamics never made it into the Top Six along
with all Dembski's junk like complex specified information. Over 25
years and what have they produced that is of any value to IDiots at this
time.

Ron Okimoto

>>
> Read the rest at
> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
>

Why

[Glenn]

Why do you always lead with either an insult or a leading question?

[RonO]

Leading question? Why do you believe what you wrote? The only reason
that such a question would be leading in any way is because you don't
have any good reason to believe what you wrote. If you have a good
reason, you could have just answered the question. The fact is that you
have no good reason for believing anything that you get from the
evolution news site. You are one of the IDiots that have been running
from the Top Six for over 3 years. The ID perps posted the Top Six on
that same creationist news site.

Why can't you put up anything that you have verified and can build on
that you got from the ID perps?

Snipping and running doesn't change reality.

REPOST

Why do you believe that? What is your evidence? Speculation by the
creationist news site that you have never gotten anything that you could
trust from is something that you can't rely on for anything. Just put
up one thing that you ever got from the creationist news site at the
Discovery Institute that was verfiable, and could actually be used for
what the ID perps were using it for. Go for it. How are you going to
verify this membrane junk?

The first cell membranes had to do a pretty poor job of being an
enclosed sack or how would things get in and out? It is nice for
keeping things in, but just attaching to the lipid bilayer would keep
essential components together even as the membranes opened and closed.
If the membrane were too good the initial self replicators would have
probably been better off attaching themselves to the outside of the
lipid bubble. They needed access to components that would have been
floating around in solution.

Start looking for the Discovery Institute IDiocy that you have ever been
able to trust and go back to as something worth building on. In 25
years there has to be something, but what is left in the Top Six? IC
got dropped out. Meyer's Cambrian explosion junk got dropped out. The
new IDiot law of thermodynamics never made it into the Top Six along
with all Dembski's junk like complex specified information. Over 25
years and what have they produced that is of any value to IDiots at this
time.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Not an answer?

[RonO]

Why do you leave me with such questions and true examples that you call
insults. Yes it was an answer, you just snipped and lied about that
part. That may be insulting, but it is insulting because it is true.
Just imagine what you would do if your imagined insults were not true.
Wouldn't demonstrating that they were not true be more satisfying than
snipping and running?

REPOST of REPOST:

END ERPOST of REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Another question?

[RonO]

Snip and run, but it will not change reality. Do you even know what you
are snipping and running from?

REPOST of REPOST:

[Glenn]

You're absolutely insane.

[RonO]

Does it make your skin crawl to leave what you are running from and
lying about in the post? How much will power did it take to close your
eyes while you were posting? Why not address it and learn something
about what you are posting. Isn't it strange that you don't have
anything that you have ever been able to verify and trust from the ID
perps, yet you continue to go back there for second rate junk when you
are running from the Top Six evidences for ID that came from the same
site that you got this second rate switch scam junk from?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Does it make your skin crawl to know that you're insane?

[RonO]

Why couldn't you leave the material in for Oo Tiib? Sort of sad that
you couldn't. What does that tell you? Why lie about someone else? I
am the one that put up the material that you have to run from. You
couild demonstrate that you haven't, but that would be pretty difficult
since you know what you have been doing. It is just lame that you
refuse to understand what you post. You have to remove the material in
order to keep yourself willfully ignorant. Reality never changes.

Do you have any rational reason why you would put up this lame membrane
second rate denial stupidity from the same guys that put up the Top Six
that you are running from? This junk did not make the best list. You
don't even wnat to know what it is, so why keep going back to the guys
that you have never been able to trust for anything?

Put up the best validated material that you have ever gotten from the ID
perps. You have spent months putting up switch scam junk that the ID
perps claim has nothing to do with IDiocy, so wouldn't it be time to put
up the really good stuff? You have put up a lot of second rate junk in
the last three years, so put up the best of the lot.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Identify a single lie I have made in this thread. Be specific, and provide explanation.

[RonO]

Projecting your insanity onto me when you are the one that obvioiusly
can't deal with reality. Why did you have to remove the material for Oo
Tiib?

You lied, and you knew that you were lying. Just check out what you did
in your response to Oo Tiib. You lie about lots of things in different
threads. You lied about who the insane one was in this thread.
Demonstrate otherwise. I am the one that put up the straight forward
information about membranes, and what did you do? Not only that, but
you had to do it twice in two different posts.

That isn't normal behavior even for you, but you started doing it
lately. How sad is that?

Just go up this thread that descends from your second response, and you
snipped out the response and lied about it.

QUOTE:

You were almost totally irresponsive to the OP, appeared not to read the
article, and when you did say something, you tried to make it appear
that the lipid bilayer is no big deal, and didn't even respond to the
claim that these membranes must protect the inner part of the cell,
bring things in and out of the cell, and repair breaks when needed.
Mitochondria reside within cells. All cells are contained within a lipid
bilayer, which is essential for survival of all cells. If
mechanisms,which are themselves very complex, do not repair damage to
this even more complex outer layer a cell will die.

END QUOTE:

Was I totally irresponsive to the OP? No. Did I appear not to have
read the article? No.

This is my response that you had to snip and lie about, so why did you
tell the lies that you told?

REPOST:
Switch scam combined with god-of-the-gaps-denial do you have anything
better than this obfuscation and denial junk? What about using the Top
Six to build your best alternative. Guys like Denton and Behe have
already done it, and if you come up with something other than what they
claim, you most likely did it wrong and have to start over.

Why isn't building anything an option? Switch scam obfuscation and
denial is stupid when you have nothing better. Really, what is the

IDiot alternative to this article about membranes. The research that

they are commenting on was done on existing lifeforms. Membranes are
very complex structures at this time. The example of the mitochondrial
membrane is that it is composed of 80% protein at this time. Membranes
around the cell have plenty of proteins and things stuck in them. Plain
lipid bilayers do form spontaneously into vesicles. Do you have
anything better than that to demonstrate how membranes first formed?
Really, we do know that vesicles form spontaneously when you put lipids
into solution. Why do you not have anything better? What good is this
denial argument in light of that reality?
END REPOST:

Read your article. It was switch scam denial stupidity combined with
god-of-the-gaps denial. What was the article about? They were claiming
that membranes would have needed repair, and that we didn't know how the
first membranes formed. What do you think they were claiming? What
information did I add, and how did it demonstrate that I did not read
the article. How would I know that they were talking aobut membranes in
existing lifeforms for the study put up by the ID perps if I had not
read the article?

You lied for your own stupid reasons.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 5/27/2021 5:10 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
> >
> > Read the rest at
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
> >
> > Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
> > Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
> >
> > This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
> >

> Switch scam combined with god-of-the-gaps-denial do you have anything
> better than this obfuscation and denial junk? What about using the Top
> Six to build your best alternative. Guys like Denton and Behe have
> already done it, and if you come up with something other than what they
> claim, you most likely did it wrong and have to start over.
>
> Why isn't building anything an option? Switch scam obfuscation and
> denial is stupid when you have nothing better. Really, what is the
> IDiot alternative to this article about membranes. The research that
> they are commenting on was done on existing lifeforms. Membranes are
> very complex structures at this time. The example of the mitochondrial
> membrane is that it is composed of 80% protein at this time. Membranes
> around the cell have plenty of proteins and things stuck in them. Plain
> lipid bilayers do form spontaneously into vesicles. Do you have
> anything better than that to demonstrate how membranes first formed?
> Really, we do know that vesicles form spontaneously when you put lipids
> into solution. Why do you not have anything better? What good is this
> denial argument in light of that reality?
>

[Glenn]

You've identified no lie of mine.
Repeating claims that I lie is not identifying a lie or explaining why something said is a lie.
The accusation of being insane is not a lie, but a honest, genuine belief.
That I can not "demonstrate" that is not a evidence of lying.
Are you even conscious of your irrational thought processes?
Are you conscious of the fact that you can't identify a single lie?

[RonO]

Is this your idea of sanity related to what you have posted other places
in the thread? Three responses to the same post? Glenn, this is not
normal behavior. You wanted examples of you lying. I gave them to you.
What are you doing, now? Is this some attempt to start over?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Um, no you didn't. That you think you did evidence your delusional state.

> What are you doing, now? Is this some attempt to start over?
>

Show where I lie about anything above. You haven't yet.

Your claim in the other post:

"Was I totally irresponsive to the OP? No. Did I appear not to have
read the article? No."

I did not claim you were "totally" irresponsive. I said "almost totally" irresponsive. Is that a lie of yours?

You did not address one of if not the main consideration of the article, and one of mine, that membranes are essential to survival of the cell, including and specifically with regard to relevance, the first cell.

So yes, you were irresponsive and definitely did appear not to have read the article, or for that matter the title, since you didn't address the subject of the first cell. Abiogenesis is the subject, not what is "at this time".

But really, what someone claims as "appearing to be" is not a lie in any event.

So have another go at it. I know you will. Start out with your usual insults.
Just show me where I lied.

[RonO]

Do you realize that you had to snip and run from the the lie that you
claim was not identified? Didn't you just lie about my response to your
request to identify a lie by you in this thread? What you should likely
do is take a break, and look at what you have been doing and determine
if you want to continue. You seem to be degenerating badly so I will
let you get yourself together.

REPOST:

Projecting your insanity onto me when you are the one that obvioiusly
can't deal with reality. Why did you have to remove the material for Oo
Tiib?

You lied, and you knew that you were lying. Just check out what you did
in your response to Oo Tiib. You lie about lots of things in different
threads. You lied about who the insane one was in this thread.
Demonstrate otherwise. I am the one that put up the straight forward
information about membranes, and what did you do? Not only that, but
you had to do it twice in two different posts.

That isn't normal behavior even for you, but you started doing it
lately. How sad is that?

Just go up this thread that descends from your second response, and you
snipped out the response and lied about it.

QUOTE:

You were almost totally irresponsive to the OP, appeared not to read the
article, and when you did say something, you tried to make it appear
that the lipid bilayer is no big deal, and didn't even respond to the
claim that these membranes must protect the inner part of the cell,
bring things in and out of the cell, and repair breaks when needed.
Mitochondria reside within cells. All cells are contained within a lipid
bilayer, which is essential for survival of all cells. If
mechanisms,which are themselves very complex, do not repair damage to
this even more complex outer layer a cell will die.

END QUOTE:

Was I totally irresponsive to the OP? No. Did I appear not to have
read the article? No.

This is my response that you had to snip and lie about, so why did you
tell the lies that you told?

REPOST:
Switch scam combined with god-of-the-gaps-denial do you have anything
better than this obfuscation and denial junk? What about using the Top
Six to build your best alternative. Guys like Denton and Behe have
already done it, and if you come up with something other than what they
claim, you most likely did it wrong and have to start over.

Why isn't building anything an option? Switch scam obfuscation and
denial is stupid when you have nothing better. Really, what is the

IDiot alternative to this article about membranes. The research that

they are commenting on was done on existing lifeforms. Membranes are
very complex structures at this time. The example of the mitochondrial
membrane is that it is composed of 80% protein at this time. Membranes
around the cell have plenty of proteins and things stuck in them. Plain
lipid bilayers do form spontaneously into vesicles. Do you have
anything better than that to demonstrate how membranes first formed?
Really, we do know that vesicles form spontaneously when you put lipids
into solution. Why do you not have anything better? What good is this
denial argument in light of that reality?
END REPOST:

Read your article. It was switch scam denial stupidity combined with
god-of-the-gaps denial. What was the article about? They were claiming
that membranes would have needed repair, and that we didn't know how the
first membranes formed. What do you think they were claiming? What
information did I add, and how did it demonstrate that I did not read
the article. How would I know that they were talking aobut membranes in
existing lifeforms for the study put up by the ID perps if I had not
read the article?

You lied for your own stupid reasons.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You've identified no lies of mine above, Ron. If you think I've missed it, then the next time you post, put it right up front, instead of 'read your article" or "why isn't building anything an option" or "switch scam" or "Projecting your insanity" or "Do you realize that you had to snip and run" or "Why do you leave me with such questions"...
the list goes on, and on, and on.

Just get straight to the point.
Identify one lie, document it, and explain why it is a lie.

[RonO]

Why keep lying?

>
>> What are you doing, now? Is this some attempt to start over?
>>
> Show where I lie about anything above. You haven't yet.
>
> Your claim in the other post:
>
> "Was I totally irresponsive to the OP? No. Did I appear not to have
> read the article? No."
>
> I did not claim you were "totally" irresponsive. I said "almost totally" irresponsive. Is that a lie of yours?

You lied. Most of the post was about the topic. You left it in and
didn't snip it out, so you know that is true.

>
> You did not address one of if not the main consideration of the article, and one of mine, that membranes are essential to survival of the cell, including and specifically with regard to relevance, the first cell.

If you look at what you wrote, you did not indicate that this was your
main consideration. The article that you put up was denial about
membrane repair. Why would the paper under discussion even be something
that would pertain to such a notion that no membrane was required? All
we know is that current cellular life has membranes.

>
> So yes, you were irresponsive and definitely did appear not to have read the article, or for that matter the title, since you didn't address the subject of the first cell. Abiogenesis is the subject, not what is "at this time".

You are just lying. You didn't want know anything about what you were
putting up. That is why you snipped and ran from it.

>
> But really, what someone claims as "appearing to be" is not a lie in any event.

You lied.

>
> So have another go at it. I know you will. Start out with your usual insults.
> Just show me where I lied.
>

Why should I. Your excuse doesn't hold up?

You lied.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Keep lying to yourself. It won't change reality.

Instead of do this sort of thing why not put up something positive that
you have come to understand about IDiocy. There has to be something in
all the years that you have been an IDiot. You are running from the Top
Six, but you ought to have something to keep you going. Wallowing in
denial isn't getting you anywhere but where you are in this thread,
lying about the stupidest things. Reposting to the same post over and
over is not normal.

Do something honest and positive. Try it, you might like it. What is
the most positive reason that you remain an IDiot/creationist.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
>
> Read the rest at
> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
>
> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
>
> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.

It seems I neglected to provide this;

"The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic Earth."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10893692_The_First_Cell_Membranes

Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?

What should have been obvious is that membranes being required meant not only that the cell needed to intake the good stuff, it needed to prevent intake of the bad stuff, and not too much or too little. Also, it would have needed to provide a way for the cell to take an occasional dump. Complex machinery would be required within the cell to accomplish all this. And the membrane would undoubtedly have to be sturdy. At the very minimum. And... but I digress.

I'll just blow a soap bubble and see if I can recreate one in the lab, but I can't quite yet envision the chick in the egg clucking. Damn, where'd I put that lab coat? Honey! Get me a beer, will you?

[RonO]

On 6/1/2021 1:58 AM, Glenn wrote:
> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
>>
>> Read the rest at
>> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
>>
>> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
>> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
>>
>> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
>
> It seems I neglected to provide this;
>
> "The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic Earth."
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10893692_The_First_Cell_Membranes
>
> Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?

This should answer your question. Their paper is paywalled, but you can
read the abstract.

QUOTE:
Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be
delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix
with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having
polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds
spontaneously self-assemble into more complex structures such as
bimolecular layers, which in turn form closed membranous vesicles. The

first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were
likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic

Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily
encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and
polymerases. The goal of future investigations will be to fabricate
artificial cells as models of the origin of life.
END QUOTE:

They are obviously talking about what the first membranes were like and
not what membranes are like after over 3 billion years of evolution.
They admit that they don't even know what the first membranes were made
of ("likely" amphiphilic and lipids are only one type of amphiphilic
molecule), and speculate that amphiphilic molecules like lipids (didn't
have to be lipids) could have made up the first membranes.

All you need to know about this IDiot denial is that they state that the
vesicles will self form. That is what is known. No one knows what the
first ones were made of.

Glenn, they are using lipid nanoparticles to deliver the mRNA for the
Covid vaccines.

From their abstract:
QUOTE:

The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that
were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the

prebiotic Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily
encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and
polymerases.
END QUOTE:

What do the ID perps think that the first membranes were made of and
required, and what is their evidence for that? What is not as good as
your own idea of what is not good enough? The membrane researchers
actually have things that are known, what do ID perps rely on?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 4:21:04 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 1:58 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
> >>
> >> Read the rest at
> >> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
> >>
> >> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
> >> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
> >>
> >> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
> >
> > It seems I neglected to provide this;
> >
> > "The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic Earth."
> >
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10893692_The_First_Cell_Membranes
> >
> > Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?

First of all, I congratulate you for not beginning a post with an insult, leading question or assuming the conclusion,
so I'm compelled to respond to your whole post.

> This should answer your question. Their paper is paywalled, but you can
> read the abstract.
>
> QUOTE:
> Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be
> delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix
> with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having
> polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds
> spontaneously self-assemble into more complex structures such as
> bimolecular layers, which in turn form closed membranous vesicles. The
> first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were
> likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic
> Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily
> encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and
> polymerases. The goal of future investigations will be to fabricate
> artificial cells as models of the origin of life.
> END QUOTE:

Surely you don't believe this shows an awareness "of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes", or why they claim that a membrane was *required*.

>
> They are obviously talking about what the first membranes were like and
> not what membranes are like after over 3 billion years of evolution.
> They admit that they don't even know what the first membranes were made
> of ("likely" amphiphilic and lipids are only one type of amphiphilic
> molecule), and speculate that amphiphilic molecules like lipids (didn't
> have to be lipids) could have made up the first membranes.

I agree. But to what extent do they identify what they must have been "like". You seem to want to deflect away from that. That they can simulate "such" vesicles can "encapsulate functional macromolecules" isn't saying much, and says NOTHING about why such membranes were *required*, let alone that they were even aware of the reasons.
Did they discuss any of this?

>
> All you need to know about this IDiot denial is that they state that the
> vesicles will self form. That is what is known. No one knows what the
> first ones were made of.

What "IDiot denial"??? And why is that all I need to know about "it"?
"Self forming" a simple membrane isn't relevant, nor denied. The issue is why the first cells *required* these "vesicles", and *why*.

>
> Glenn, they are using lipid nanoparticles to deliver the mRNA for the
> Covid vaccines.

What does that prove or show? Are you seriously comparing that to the first living cell?

>
> From their abstract:
> QUOTE:
> The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that
> were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the
> prebiotic Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily
> encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and
> polymerases.
> END QUOTE:

You already posted that above.

>
> What do the ID perps think that the first membranes were made of and
> required, and what is their evidence for that? What is not as good as
> your own idea of what is not good enough? The membrane researchers
> actually have things that are known, what do ID perps rely on?
>

Answer your own questions. They aren't answers to my question, and not responsive to my claims,nor they constitute an argument. Maybe you should read those particular gems over a few times yourself.

> >
> > What should have been obvious is that membranes being required meant not only that the cell needed to intake the good stuff, it needed to prevent intake of the bad stuff, and not too much or too little. Also, it would have needed to provide a way for the cell to take an occasional dump. Complex machinery would be required within the cell to accomplish all this. And the membrane would undoubtedly have to be sturdy. At the very minimum. And... but I digress.

I expected you to ignore this, and you did. Why?
Do you agree? Is it all just "IDiot perp" stuff?

I'm not talking about extant cells here. That would have been obvious to you. So should the fact that in the post to which you replied, the above is just below what is at the start of your long reply to:

"Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?"

So again, why did you ignore the above?

> >
> > I'll just blow a soap bubble and see if I can recreate one in the lab, but I can't quite yet envision the chick in the egg clucking. Damn, where'd I put that lab coat? Honey! Get me a beer, will you?
> >

I have told you that you are unresponsive to what you reply to. It appears even this sarcasm didn't push you to actually respond to what is actually said.

[RonO]

On 6/1/2021 4:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 4:21:04 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 6/1/2021 1:58 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
>>>>
>>>> Read the rest at
>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
>>>>
>>>> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
>>>> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
>>>>
>>>> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
>>>
>>> It seems I neglected to provide this;
>>>
>>> "The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic Earth."
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10893692_The_First_Cell_Membranes
>>>
>>> Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?
>
> First of all, I congratulate you for not beginning a post with an insult, leading question or assuming the conclusion,
> so I'm compelled to respond to your whole post.

You run because you never can deal with reality. I inform you about
your junk, but you run. That is what you do because you don't want to
understand what you put up.

>
>> This should answer your question. Their paper is paywalled, but you can
>> read the abstract.
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be
>> delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix
>> with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having
>> polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds
>> spontaneously self-assemble into more complex structures such as
>> bimolecular layers, which in turn form closed membranous vesicles. The
>> first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were
>> likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic
>> Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily
>> encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and
>> polymerases. The goal of future investigations will be to fabricate
>> artificial cells as models of the origin of life.
>> END QUOTE:
>
> Surely you don't believe this shows an awareness "of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes", or why they claim that a membrane was *required*.

Surely, you understand that they didn't need to have any such awareness
because they were talking about the first such membranes, not what we
have after over 3 billion years of evolutionary improvement.

A membrane is required because that is what the ancestor of all extant
life had to have. Really, it is that simple. All extant cellular
lifeforms have lipid membranes. At sometime the ancestor of cellular
life would have had to develop one. They may have used something else
at first, but eventually the ancestor of cellular life on earth would
have settled on lipids.

>>
>> They are obviously talking about what the first membranes were like and
>> not what membranes are like after over 3 billion years of evolution.
>> They admit that they don't even know what the first membranes were made
>> of ("likely" amphiphilic and lipids are only one type of amphiphilic
>> molecule), and speculate that amphiphilic molecules like lipids (didn't
>> have to be lipids) could have made up the first membranes.
>
> I agree. But to what extent do they identify what they must have been "like". You seem to want to deflect away from that. That they can simulate "such" vesicles can "encapsulate functional macromolecules" isn't saying much, and says NOTHING about why such membranes were *required*, let alone that they were even aware of the reasons.
> Did they discuss any of this?

So why did you expect them to be talking about extant membranes that
have evolved for over 3 billion years? They are required because the
ancestor had to have one because the descendent cells have one. There
may have been other self replicators that attached themselves to balls
of clay or silts with fine particulate mineral crystals, but the
ancestor of extant life must have developed a membrane at some time.
Membranes are obviously nice ways to keep any group of self replicators
together in order to help each other out, but you can do the same thing
by sticking them to some organic tar or some other mineral that doesn't
have to be carbon based, but was likely carbon based because the
molecules that were the first self replicators were likely carbon based.

>>
>> All you need to know about this IDiot denial is that they state that the
>> vesicles will self form. That is what is known. No one knows what the
>> first ones were made of.
>
> What "IDiot denial"??? And why is that all I need to know about "it"?
> "Self forming" a simple membrane isn't relevant, nor denied. The issue is why the first cells *required* these "vesicles", and *why*.

What were the ID perps that you got the membrane denial argument from in
denial of? How can you miss that the ID perps were just feeding you a
switch scam denial argument. They were claiming that the early membrane
needed a sophisticated repair system, but they obviously don't know
that. They were claiming that no such sophiticated repair system could
have existed when the first membranes were forming. It was just one of
their standard types of denial stupidity. They don't know the answer,
but are just satisfied that the answer isn't known.

The first self replicators that might have used a lipid bilayer may not
have even used it as a vesicle forming membrane, but could have just
anchored in it so that they would stay together on the same patch of
lipid bilayer. It might spontaneously form a vesicle, but the early
self replicators were likely better off if they ended up outside the
vesicle so that they would have access to the parts they needed to self
replicate. Eventually they might have developed the means to stay
inside the vesicle and open it up once in a while to let the components
to make more of themselves into the vesicle, or the membrane could have
been unstable enough to let things in.

>>
>> Glenn, they are using lipid nanoparticles to deliver the mRNA for the
>> Covid vaccines.
>
> What does that prove or show? Are you seriously comparing that to the first living cell?

That lipids spontaneously form around nucleic acids. Like the paper
claimed. Duh. It might be that the first membranes weren't formed
until nucleic acids started to be used for self replication. We don't
know what the first self replicating molecules were. The RNA world
would likely have been at least second generation self replicators after
self replicators had existed and evolved to make nucleotides.

>>
>> From their abstract:
>> QUOTE:
>> The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that
>> were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the
>> prebiotic Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily
>> encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and
>> polymerases.
>> END QUOTE:
>
> You already posted that above.

Have you learned anything from it. It is obviously why I made the point
about the mRNA vaccines. What do you not get?

>>
>> What do the ID perps think that the first membranes were made of and
>> required, and what is their evidence for that? What is not as good as
>> your own idea of what is not good enough? The membrane researchers
>> actually have things that are known, what do ID perps rely on?
>>
> Answer your own questions. They aren't answers to my question, and not responsive to my claims,nor they constitute an argument. Maybe you should read those particular gems over a few times yourself.

The answer is that they don't know, and you know it, so why run from
that reality?

>>>
>>> What should have been obvious is that membranes being required meant not only that the cell needed to intake the good stuff, it needed to prevent intake of the bad stuff, and not too much or too little. Also, it would have needed to provide a way for the cell to take an occasional dump. Complex machinery would be required within the cell to accomplish all this. And the membrane would undoubtedly have to be sturdy. At the very minimum. And... but I digress.
>
> I expected you to ignore this, and you did. Why?
> Do you agree? Is it all just "IDiot perp" stuff?

Denial isn't anything worth pursuing. Demonstrate that this machinery
was needed for the first such membranes. I had already put up enough
material so that you should have understood that lame denial is just
stupid when the ID perps didn't know what they were talking about.

>
> I'm not talking about extant cells here. That would have been obvious to you. So should the fact that in the post to which you replied, the above is just below what is at the start of your long reply to:

Just think for a momment, and you should be able to get it if you have
learned anything at all. When membranes first were used the first self
replicators already existed in a situation where they were not enclosed
in a membrane. They wold have had to adapt to it. As I said before, at
first they would likely be better off stuck on the outside of the
vesicle partially embedded in the lipids so that they could conduct the
lifestyle that they were used to. You just answered your own denial
about intact membranes and sophisticated repair. The first membranes
were likely unstable and opened and closed routinely, otherwise the self
replicators would not have been able to continue to replicate as they
had before they got involved with lipid membranes.

>
> "Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?"

They obviously didn't have to be aware of any such thing, because they
were not needed when the first membranes formed. Why would the
researchers need to think that they were needed when they didn't exist
at that time.

>
> So again, why did you ignore the above?

So again, have you learned anything, or are you going to resort to
willful ignorance and run from reality?

>>>
>>> I'll just blow a soap bubble and see if I can recreate one in the lab, but I can't quite yet envision the chick in the egg clucking. Damn, where'd I put that lab coat? Honey! Get me a beer, will you?
>>>
> I have told you that you are unresponsive to what you reply to. It appears even this sarcasm didn't push you to actually respond to what is actually said.
>

You are lucky that I didn't bother to respond to everything because it
is obviously something that needed no response. Just think of how
stupid you made yourself out to be.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:46:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 4:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 4:21:04 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2021 1:58 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >>>> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
> >>>>
> >>>> Read the rest at
> >>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
> >>>>
> >>>> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
> >>>> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
> >>>>
> >>>> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
> >>>
> >>> It seems I neglected to provide this;
> >>>
> >>> "The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic Earth."
> >>>
> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10893692_The_First_Cell_Membranes
> >>>
> >>> Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?
> >
> > First of all, I congratulate you for not beginning a post with an insult, leading question or assuming the conclusion,
> > so I'm compelled to respond to your whole post.
> You run because you never can deal with reality. I inform you about
> your junk, but you run. That is what you do because you don't want to
> understand what you put up.

I'll let you get by with that typical starting rant. Don't let it go to your head.

> >
> >> This should answer your question. Their paper is paywalled, but you can
> >> read the abstract.
> >>
> >> QUOTE:
> >> Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be
> >> delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix
> >> with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having
> >> polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds
> >> spontaneously self-assemble into more complex structures such as
> >> bimolecular layers, which in turn form closed membranous vesicles. The
> >> first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were
> >> likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic
> >> Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily
> >> encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and
> >> polymerases. The goal of future investigations will be to fabricate
> >> artificial cells as models of the origin of life.
> >> END QUOTE:
> >
> > Surely you don't believe this shows an awareness "of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes", or why they claim that a membrane was *required*.
> Surely, you understand that they didn't need to have any such awareness
> because they were talking about the first such membranes, not what we
> have after over 3 billion years of evolutionary improvement.

Surely they needed to have some awareness, because they claim that the first cell required a membrane.
Surely they didn't assume such a membrane was one that had no function, and sealed such RNA inside.

>
> A membrane is required because that is what the ancestor of all extant
> life had to have. Really, it is that simple. All extant cellular
> lifeforms have lipid membranes. At sometime the ancestor of cellular
> life would have had to develop one. They may have used something else
> at first, but eventually the ancestor of cellular life on earth would
> have settled on lipids.

Your reasoning skills are very disappointing, and is irresponsive. It isn't that simple, nor is the claim that a membrane was required challenged. Neither is your claim that today all life have membranes.
What you think may have happened is irrelevant.

> >>
> >> They are obviously talking about what the first membranes were like and
> >> not what membranes are like after over 3 billion years of evolution.
> >> They admit that they don't even know what the first membranes were made
> >> of ("likely" amphiphilic and lipids are only one type of amphiphilic
> >> molecule), and speculate that amphiphilic molecules like lipids (didn't
> >> have to be lipids) could have made up the first membranes.
> >
> > I agree. But to what extent do they identify what they must have been "like". You seem to want to deflect away from that. That they can simulate "such" vesicles can "encapsulate functional macromolecules" isn't saying much, and says NOTHING about why such membranes were *required*, let alone that they were even aware of the reasons.
> > Did they discuss any of this?
> So why did you expect them to be talking about extant membranes that
> have evolved for over 3 billion years? They are required because the
> ancestor had to have one because the descendent cells have one.

That's silly, and contradictory. Just above you said 'They may have used something else at first".
I didn't say I expected them to be talking about how membranes have evolved. You're deflecting, at best.
Probably though you're just talking to yourself.
I expect you to answer whether and why they did or didn't extrapolate on the reasons for why they claim a membrane was REQUIRED. If you want to insist that the reason they had was simply because all cells today have membranes, then you and they have a lot to account for, and "encapsulating" doesn't cut it. You KNOW there are many functions of a "membrane" that involve and REQUIRE many complex protein "machines" and structures that allows a cell to exist and reproduce. You continue to evade and ignore this.

>There
> may have been other self replicators that attached themselves to balls
> of clay or silts with fine particulate mineral crystals, but the
> ancestor of extant life must have developed a membrane at some time.

Irresponsive and irrelevant.

> Membranes are obviously nice ways to keep any group of self replicators
> together in order to help each other out, but you can do the same thing
> by sticking them to some organic tar or some other mineral that doesn't
> have to be carbon based, but was likely carbon based because the
> molecules that were the first self replicators were likely carbon based.

Put yourself in one without an oxygen tank and see how long you replicate.

> >>
> >> All you need to know about this IDiot denial is that they state that the
> >> vesicles will self form. That is what is known. No one knows what the
> >> first ones were made of.
> >
> > What "IDiot denial"??? And why is that all I need to know about "it"?
> > "Self forming" a simple membrane isn't relevant, nor denied. The issue is why the first cells *required* these "vesicles", and *why*.

> What were the ID perps that you got the membrane denial argument from in
> denial of? How can you miss that the ID perps were just feeding you a
> switch scam denial argument. They were claiming that the early membrane
> needed a sophisticated repair system, but they obviously don't know
> that.

They don't, and you EVOidiots don't, and abiogenesis is a complete mystery that science has made no progress on.
But to argue against the assumption that any living thing could not survive in an enclosed bubble is insane.
Where is the "denial" in a claim that a membrane needed to be "sophisticated"?
You're actually lying here, since "they" actually included a quote that fits the description of "sophisticated".
Are the authors of the "paper in the EMBO Journal by Yan Zhen et al., “Sealing holes in cellular membranes,”
IDiot perps pulling switch scams?

>They were claiming that no such sophiticated repair system could
> have existed when the first membranes were forming. It was just one of
> their standard types of denial stupidity. They don't know the answer,
> but are just satisfied that the answer isn't known.

There's another lie. They do not claim that "such a repair system could have existed when forming' in any shape or form. ID suggests that natural processes could not have made that happen.
There is no denial there. You call it denial because you believe it. But you don't know, and you said above.
And your opinion about what they are satisfied with is worthless, and irrelevant.

>
> The first self replicators that might have used a lipid bilayer may not
> have even used it as a vesicle forming membrane, but could have just
> anchored in it so that they would stay together on the same patch of
> lipid bilayer.

You don't know that is even possible, but "used" ignores the fact that such a lipid bilayer must have had complex machines and structures to function and allow the "first self replicators" to survive.
Here you're trying to imply that the first cells might not have needed membranes. And it's wild speculation.

>It might spontaneously form a vesicle, but the early
> self replicators were likely better off if they ended up outside the
> vesicle so that they would have access to the parts they needed to self
> replicate.

You don't know that is even possible, let alone "likely", one of your favorite words.
There are reasons for the claim that the first cell required a membrane. You even admit that above.
This wild speculation of yours is your obsession talking, not science.

>Eventually they might have developed the means to stay
> inside the vesicle and open it up once in a while to let the components
> to make more of themselves into the vesicle, or the membrane could have
> been unstable enough to let things in.

If all we had to do was say "might" to get a buck, we'd all be rich. Such speculation can't be refuted, since it is baseless. Think about that when you're plucking chickens at work.

> >>
> >> Glenn, they are using lipid nanoparticles to deliver the mRNA for the
> >> Covid vaccines.
> >
> > What does that prove or show? Are you seriously comparing that to the first living cell?

> That lipids spontaneously form around nucleic acids. Like the paper
> claimed. Duh. It might be that the first membranes weren't formed
> until nucleic acids started to be used for self replication. We don't
> know what the first self replicating molecules were. The RNA world
> would likely have been at least second generation self replicators after
> self replicators had existed and evolved to make nucleotides.

I wouldn't take your word for that for all the money in China.
Just be aware, the covid vaccine is designed and the mRNA inside is not alive and doesn't reproduce.

You're the one in denial, Ron. Demonstrate that this machinery was not needed for the first cell.
The first cell could not have been a single mRNA molecule floating in some ooze in an enclosed ball.
You don't know what you're talking about. You and your meaningless speculations about what is "likely"
demonstrates your ignorance. And in case you haven't looked, you've "put up" exactly NO material.

And again, and again, and again, I don't deny anything, Ron. From all we know, the first cell must have had a membrane, for similar reasons as cells do today. And they are enormously complex, and requires very complex instructions to build and maintain them. You're in denial by trying to make it appear that some pre-first cell "replicator" worked away mutating and building all the instructions needed to build a membrane, then hopped in later, and wala, the first cell was born. That avoids the question and the issue.

> >
> > I'm not talking about extant cells here. That would have been obvious to you. So should the fact that in the post to which you replied, the above is just below what is at the start of your long reply to:
> Just think for a momment, and you should be able to get it if you have
> learned anything at all.

I'll not tolerate more of this crap from you. Call it running if you wish, as it seems to make you happy.
For me to throw that back at you and say the same about you would be useless, as useless as you saying it.

>When membranes first were used the first self
> replicators already existed in a situation where they were not enclosed
> in a membrane.

Fantasy. Replication is what defines life. You're in denial of the subject at hand, the claim that the first cell required a membrane. If you object to that, you should have, and could have, said so long ago in this silly long ass series of long ass posts. But you didn't and are now only much later on trying to pull this bullcrap. Denial in all it's ugly glory.
How often do you change your earplugs?

Just post a reference if you want me to "learn" that. Othewise, zip it.

>They wold have had to adapt to it. As I said before, at
> first they would likely be better off stuck on the outside of the
> vesicle partially embedded in the lipids so that they could conduct the
> lifestyle that they were used to. You just answered your own denial
> about intact membranes and sophisticated repair. The first membranes
> were likely unstable and opened and closed routinely, otherwise the self
> replicators would not have been able to continue to replicate as they
> had before they got involved with lipid membranes.

More fantasy, irrelevant, irresponsive and contradictory.

> >
> > "Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?"
> They obviously didn't have to be aware of any such thing, because they
> were not needed when the first membranes formed. Why would the
> researchers need to think that they were needed when they didn't exist
> at that time.

So you expect me to "learn" by accepting those claims??? You truly are mentally ill.
So membranes didn't exist, and life floated around getting everything together so that it could make a membrane and jump in it. And you attribute that to the authors of the papers I posted? And you think I'm the idiot pulling switch scams?? Good lord almighty.

> >
> > So again, why did you ignore the above?
> So again, have you learned anything, or are you going to resort to
> willful ignorance and run from reality?

I don't run from anything, never have, nuthead. But yes, I learned a litle about how you can spin a tale.
Pity you have learned nothing. You could if you could face yourself.

> >>>
> >>> I'll just blow a soap bubble and see if I can recreate one in the lab, but I can't quite yet envision the chick in the egg clucking. Damn, where'd I put that lab coat? Honey! Get me a beer, will you?
> >>>
> > I have told you that you are unresponsive to what you reply to. It appears even this sarcasm didn't push you to actually respond to what is actually said.
> >
> You are lucky that I didn't bother to respond to everything because it
> is obviously something that needed no response. Just think of how
> stupid you made yourself out to be.
>

As I already knew, responding to you is a waste of time. And you end with insult.
So anyway, I made the attempt. It likely won't ever happen again.

Continue with your ranting, Ron. Just remember if you can (though I doubt you can) that I won't bother trying to reason with you in the future, and don't be surprised that at the first sign of insult or silliness on your part you'll get snipped without reading the rest, and you can go merrily upward and onward with your silly accusations and reposting of reposts of reposts, with maybe the occasional addition of a url to another of your reposted repost posts.

[RonO]

On 6/1/2021 9:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:46:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 6/1/2021 4:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 4:21:04 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2021 1:58 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the rest at
>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
>>>>>> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems I neglected to provide this;
>>>>>
>>>>> "The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic Earth."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10893692_The_First_Cell_Membranes
>>>>>
>>>>> Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?
>>>
>>> First of all, I congratulate you for not beginning a post with an insult, leading question or assuming the conclusion,
>>> so I'm compelled to respond to your whole post.
>> You run because you never can deal with reality. I inform you about
>> your junk, but you run. That is what you do because you don't want to
>> understand what you put up.
>
> I'll let you get by with that typical starting rant. Don't let it go to your head.

You have to run from reality because you know that it is true. Just
look at the vast majority of your responses.

It seems that you do not know what the ID perps are in denial of for
this denial argument. You don't seem to understand it in this response

QUOTE:
Origin-of-life theorists often assume that membranes would spontaneously
form naturally around protocells by the properties of lipid
self-organization. That, however, is only the beginning of their
challenges. Membranes need channels for active transport to control what
goes in and out. They also need repair mechanisms if they break. If by
inconceivable chance miracles those properties also emerged along with
the lucky contents for life inside the membrane, they would never be
inherited if they were not preserved in the genetic code. But even that
is not enough. Along with code, machinery must be present to translate
the code into other machines that know what to do when a membrane
breaks. Unwatched membranes are vulnerable to leaks, and they don’t
care. Without foresight and oversight, protocells would be like bubbles
that pop in due time. Too bad for those hard-won living ingredients inside.
END QUOTE:

What does Glenn not get about what they are in denial of? They are
claiming that Membranes require a lot of things to function, and that
there is no path to develop those characteristics. It is a standard
god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know how membranes evolved so god
did it.

QUOTE:
Membrane repair is a key emergency operation for a cell. Just like
countries with different military branches for external threats and
police agencies for internal threats, cells come well equipped to handle
breaches to their security. Saying these systems “have evolved” explains
nothing. Something had the foresight to know these systems would be
necessary for life and health. Something has the oversight to ensure
their successful operation. The irreducible complexity touched on with
this brief look at membrane repair provides additional and powerful
evidence for intelligent design.
END QUOTE:

They are claiming that membranes as we know them could not have evolved
on their own. Irreducible complexity is invoked even though there has
never been any system determined to be Behe's type of irreducibly
complex. What was the "scientific" test that both Minnich and Behe put
up to test IC? If the flagellum could evolve IC would be falsified for
flagellum being IC. They are claiming that membrane repair processes
could not evolve on their own and that lifeforms require these
processes. This is just the standard god of the gaps stupidity. They
claim that we don't know something, and then claim that their designer
fills the gap. They obviously have no idea of how this gap was filled
by their designer, and like Dean they don't want to know that. What was
the designer doing to evolve membranes over 3 billion years ago? No one
claims that the first membranes were as complex as they are today.

>>>
>>>> This should answer your question. Their paper is paywalled, but you can
>>>> read the abstract.
>>>>
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>> Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be
>>>> delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix
>>>> with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having
>>>> polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds
>>>> spontaneously self-assemble into more complex structures such as
>>>> bimolecular layers, which in turn form closed membranous vesicles. The
>>>> first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were
>>>> likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic
>>>> Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily
>>>> encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and
>>>> polymerases. The goal of future investigations will be to fabricate
>>>> artificial cells as models of the origin of life.
>>>> END QUOTE:
>>>
>>> Surely you don't believe this shows an awareness "of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes", or why they claim that a membrane was *required*.
>> Surely, you understand that they didn't need to have any such awareness
>> because they were talking about the first such membranes, not what we
>> have after over 3 billion years of evolutionary improvement.
>
> Surely they needed to have some awareness, because they claim that the first cell required a membrane.
> Surely they didn't assume such a membrane was one that had no function, and sealed such RNA inside.

Surely they were talking about a time when those things did not exist.
Why keep denying reality?

>>
>> A membrane is required because that is what the ancestor of all extant
>> life had to have. Really, it is that simple. All extant cellular
>> lifeforms have lipid membranes. At sometime the ancestor of cellular
>> life would have had to develop one. They may have used something else
>> at first, but eventually the ancestor of cellular life on earth would
>> have settled on lipids.
>
> Your reasoning skills are very disappointing, and is irresponsive. It isn't that simple, nor is the claim that a membrane was required challenged. Neither is your claim that today all life have membranes.
> What you think may have happened is irrelevant.

Your running from reality in this way is more than disappointing and
irresponsive to what you can't deal with. Reality is just what it is.
I claim all cellular life, and this is a fact. Do you put up any
counter examples? No? Why not? It may be because there are none.

>>>>
>>>> They are obviously talking about what the first membranes were like and
>>>> not what membranes are like after over 3 billion years of evolution.
>>>> They admit that they don't even know what the first membranes were made
>>>> of ("likely" amphiphilic and lipids are only one type of amphiphilic
>>>> molecule), and speculate that amphiphilic molecules like lipids (didn't
>>>> have to be lipids) could have made up the first membranes.
>>>
>>> I agree. But to what extent do they identify what they must have been "like". You seem to want to deflect away from that. That they can simulate "such" vesicles can "encapsulate functional macromolecules" isn't saying much, and says NOTHING about why such membranes were *required*, let alone that they were even aware of the reasons.
>>> Did they discuss any of this?
>> So why did you expect them to be talking about extant membranes that
>> have evolved for over 3 billion years? They are required because the
>> ancestor had to have one because the descendent cells have one.
>
> That's silly, and contradictory. Just above you said 'They may have used something else at first".
> I didn't say I expected them to be talking about how membranes have evolved. You're deflecting, at best.
> Probably though you're just talking to yourself.
> I expect you to answer whether and why they did or didn't extrapolate on the reasons for why they claim a membrane was REQUIRED. If you want to insist that the reason they had was simply because all cells today have membranes, then you and they have a lot to account for, and "encapsulating" doesn't cut it. You KNOW there are many functions of a "membrane" that involve and REQUIRE many complex protein "machines" and structures that allows a cell to exist and reproduce. You continue to evade and ignore this.

Look at your claim that all life does not have membranes above. Virus
may be alive and might be considered lifeforms, but a lot of them rely
on protein shells and not lipid membranes. Your own counter to all
cellular life tells you that you are just wrong about this. Life
obviously could have done something different, and virus did. What
about all the papers about proteinaceous shells, and origin of life
researchers making spheres of proteins.

The fact is that membranes did not have to be initially used to keep
things inside. Just as I claim if membranes were as closed and secure
as the ID perps want them to be before we have all the systems to get
things in and out the early self replicators would be better off on the
outside of the vessicle. How are they going to get the components to
make more of themselves if early membranes are really good barriers?

>
>> There
>> may have been other self replicators that attached themselves to balls
>> of clay or silts with fine particulate mineral crystals, but the
>> ancestor of extant life must have developed a membrane at some time.
>
> Irresponsive and irrelevant.

No, just projection of what you are doing. Membranes are not needed to
keep units together. The first groups of self replicators likely didn't
use membranes. It is totally relevant to your claims about what the
researchers should have considered.

>
>> Membranes are obviously nice ways to keep any group of self replicators
>> together in order to help each other out, but you can do the same thing
>> by sticking them to some organic tar or some other mineral that doesn't
>> have to be carbon based, but was likely carbon based because the
>> molecules that were the first self replicators were likely carbon based.
>
> Put yourself in one without an oxygen tank and see how long you replicate.

Did the first lifeforms need oxygen? Denial of reality just to maintain
notions that just don't matter is what you are doing. Membranes were
not required for life to start. All extant cellular life is descended
from a lifeform that did develop lipid membranes. That is not the same
as claiming that membranes were required for abiogenesis.

>>>>
>>>> All you need to know about this IDiot denial is that they state that the
>>>> vesicles will self form. That is what is known. No one knows what the
>>>> first ones were made of.
>>>
>>> What "IDiot denial"??? And why is that all I need to know about "it"?
>>> "Self forming" a simple membrane isn't relevant, nor denied. The issue is why the first cells *required* these "vesicles", and *why*.
>
>> What were the ID perps that you got the membrane denial argument from in
>> denial of? How can you miss that the ID perps were just feeding you a
>> switch scam denial argument. They were claiming that the early membrane
>> needed a sophisticated repair system, but they obviously don't know
>> that.
>
> They don't, and you EVOidiots don't, and abiogenesis is a complete mystery that science has made no progress on.
> But to argue against the assumption that any living thing could not survive in an enclosed bubble is insane.
> Where is the "denial" in a claim that a membrane needed to be "sophisticated"?
> You're actually lying here, since "they" actually included a quote that fits the description of "sophisticated".
> Are the authors of the "paper in the EMBO Journal by Yan Zhen et al., “Sealing holes in cellular membranes,”
> IDiot perps pulling switch scams?

Why lie about abiogenesis to deny what the ID perps were doing? You
call it no progress, but what does real science have in terms of
abiogenesis, and what do IDiots have in terms of IDiocy? Abiogenesis
research has something, and IDiocy never developed any equivalent
science. Why has the bait and switch been going down for over 19 years?
Why don't you ever put up the ID science equivalent to what you claim
abiogenesis research lacks? Why is IDiocy not as good as your own level
of not good enough?

Read their argument. What do you think that they are doing when they
point out that today's membranes require sophisticated repair mechanisms?

>
>> They were claiming that no such sophiticated repair system could
>> have existed when the first membranes were forming. It was just one of
>> their standard types of denial stupidity. They don't know the answer,
>> but are just satisfied that the answer isn't known.
>
> There's another lie. They do not claim that "such a repair system could have existed when forming' in any shape or form. ID suggests that natural processes could not have made that happen.
> There is no denial there. You call it denial because you believe it. But you don't know, and you said above.
> And your opinion about what they are satisfied with is worthless, and irrelevant.

Read what they wrote. What about their claims that such sophisticated
mechanisms would have to be in place for membranes to remain intact in
the early lifeforms mean? Why ask the question of how early membranes
dealt with these issues after making claims about how sophisticated such
repair processes have to be today? This is just another case where you
did not understand what you were putting up. Why did the ID perps go to
the trouble of describing how membranes are repaired today. Why did
they take that description and apply it to the first membranes that
would have existed? Why doesn't the argument work and is worthless
denial? What is their alternative? Why don't they have one? The
ancestor of all extant cellular life likely had a lipid membrane because
all the descendant lineages have one, so what happened back then? When
all you have is denial, and you have nothing better than what you claim
isn't good enough. The denial argument fails.

>>
>> The first self replicators that might have used a lipid bilayer may not
>> have even used it as a vesicle forming membrane, but could have just
>> anchored in it so that they would stay together on the same patch of
>> lipid bilayer.
>
> You don't know that is even possible, but "used" ignores the fact that such a lipid bilayer must have had complex machines and structures to function and allow the "first self replicators" to survive.
> Here you're trying to imply that the first cells might not have needed membranes. And it's wild speculation.

No, neither do you know that they didn't. It is just a fact, that it
could have been used in that way. Demonstrate otherwise. What were the
first self replicators? When did these self replicators start using
shells or membranes? We don't know. What do you have to explain things?

>
>> It might spontaneously form a vesicle, but the early
>> self replicators were likely better off if they ended up outside the
>> vesicle so that they would have access to the parts they needed to self
>> replicate.
>
> You don't know that is even possible, let alone "likely", one of your favorite words.
> There are reasons for the claim that the first cell required a membrane. You even admit that above.
> This wild speculation of yours is your obsession talking, not science.

Before there were membranes the self replcators would have been exposed
to the open environment in some way. How would they adapt to being
walled off from what they needed to self replicate? What is your
alternative? Being on the outside of the vesicle is as good away as any
to be exposed to what you need. Not only that, but by the ID perp's own
reasoning these vesicles would be unstable so sometimes they would be
inside and sometimes they would be outside. All they would require is
to be stuck in the membrane at some attachment point between the
membrane and the self replicator.

>
>> Eventually they might have developed the means to stay
>> inside the vesicle and open it up once in a while to let the components
>> to make more of themselves into the vesicle, or the membrane could have
>> been unstable enough to let things in.
>
> If all we had to do was say "might" to get a buck, we'd all be rich. Such speculation can't be refuted, since it is baseless. Think about that when you're plucking chickens at work.

If you had anything more than "might" you could put it forward. Why is
switch scam denial and second rate god-of-the-gaps stupidity your only
option? Why doesn't this god-of-the-gaps stupidity rank among the Top
Six? Maybe they include it with #4 irreducible complexity, though it is
only their claim that it is irreducibly complex. Behe has never claimed
that about membranes.

>>>>
>>>> Glenn, they are using lipid nanoparticles to deliver the mRNA for the
>>>> Covid vaccines.
>>>
>>> What does that prove or show? Are you seriously comparing that to the first living cell?
>
>> That lipids spontaneously form around nucleic acids. Like the paper
>> claimed. Duh. It might be that the first membranes weren't formed
>> until nucleic acids started to be used for self replication. We don't
>> know what the first self replicating molecules were. The RNA world
>> would likely have been at least second generation self replicators after
>> self replicators had existed and evolved to make nucleotides.
>
> I wouldn't take your word for that for all the money in China.
> Just be aware, the covid vaccine is designed and the mRNA inside is not alive and doesn't reproduce.

Except that is what the authors claim, and not me. Sort of sad that you
don't understand that when I quoted them.

Why is this all that you can do to deny that you were wrong about why I
put up the quote? Denial to support your denial is stupid.

>
> And again, and again, and again, I don't deny anything, Ron. From all we know, the first cell must have had a membrane, for similar reasons as cells do today. And they are enormously complex, and requires very complex instructions to build and maintain them. You're in denial by trying to make it appear that some pre-first cell "replicator" worked away mutating and building all the instructions needed to build a membrane, then hopped in later, and wala, the first cell was born. That avoids the question and the issue.

Reread what you post and keep running from in denial. Membranes aren't
just used to keep things in today. They are used to keep things in
specific regions on specific sides of the membrane in order to function.
What do you not get about what membranes are used for today. Really,
what do you make of the mitochondrial membrane being 80% protein. These
proteins are part of the membrane. It isn't keeping them inside, some
are stuck more on one side of the membrane or the other. I am just
using what we already know what membranes do.

What is the IDiot alternative? If it doesn't include the evolution of
membranes, what do you think happened and what the first membranes were
doing? What is the basis for your speculation? My speculation is based
on what membranes are already known to do and are used for.

>
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about extant cells here. That would have been obvious to you. So should the fact that in the post to which you replied, the above is just below what is at the start of your long reply to:
>> Just think for a momment, and you should be able to get it if you have
>> learned anything at all.
>
> I'll not tolerate more of this crap from you. Call it running if you wish, as it seems to make you happy.
> For me to throw that back at you and say the same about you would be useless, as useless as you saying it.

So you aren't going to think for just a momment, and you'd rather wallow
in your ignorant denial forever.

>
>> When membranes first were used the first self
>> replicators already existed in a situation where they were not enclosed
>> in a membrane.
>
> Fantasy. Replication is what defines life. You're in denial of the subject at hand, the claim that the first cell required a membrane. If you object to that, you should have, and could have, said so long ago in this silly long ass series of long ass posts. But you didn't and are now only much later on trying to pull this bullcrap. Denial in all it's ugly glory.
> How often do you change your earplugs?

Does anyone claim that the first self replicators required to be
enclosed in a membrane? Projection about your using earplugs if only
due to your mental incompetense is noted. There may be some origin of
life speculations like that, but I don't know of any. What do you make
of all the research going into using clays and mineral crystals say
about your denial above that the first self replicators didn't need
membranes and adapted to their use?

>
> Just post a reference if you want me to "learn" that. Othewise, zip it.

Post your reference.

Here is mine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

What is the order of evolution of life from non life?

QUOTE:
While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing
scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living
entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of
increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication,
self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell
membranes.[9][10][11]
END QUOTE:

Did you learn anything or are you going to remain willfully ignorant
forever?

>
>> They wold have had to adapt to it. As I said before, at
>> first they would likely be better off stuck on the outside of the
>> vesicle partially embedded in the lipids so that they could conduct the
>> lifestyle that they were used to. You just answered your own denial
>> about intact membranes and sophisticated repair. The first membranes
>> were likely unstable and opened and closed routinely, otherwise the self
>> replicators would not have been able to continue to replicate as they
>> had before they got involved with lipid membranes.
>
> More fantasy, irrelevant, irresponsive and contradictory.

Just more for you to deny in your own fashion. Why is denial your only
out. Got an alternative as good? Why is your alternative worse than
what you call "fantasy"? My speculation is based on what we know
membranes can do. What is your alternative based on?

>>>
>>> "Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?"
>> They obviously didn't have to be aware of any such thing, because they
>> were not needed when the first membranes formed. Why would the
>> researchers need to think that they were needed when they didn't exist
>> at that time.
>
> So you expect me to "learn" by accepting those claims??? You truly are mentally ill.
> So membranes didn't exist, and life floated around getting everything together so that it could make a membrane and jump in it. And you attribute that to the authors of the papers I posted? And you think I'm the idiot pulling switch scams?? Good lord almighty.

Just because you are mentally ill doesn't meant that you can't learn
anything. It is just more difficult for you to do. Try to understand
what the ID perp's argument was. They were in denial of membrane
evolution. What did they do to support that denial?

>>>
>>> So again, why did you ignore the above?
>> So again, have you learned anything, or are you going to resort to
>> willful ignorance and run from reality?
>
> I don't run from anything, never have, nuthead. But yes, I learned a litle about how you can spin a tale.
> Pity you have learned nothing. You could if you could face yourself.

What are you doing in all the snip and run posts that you keep putting
up? Why haven't you addressed the Top Six in the last 3 years?

Lying about what you do is just lame.

>>>>>
>>>>> I'll just blow a soap bubble and see if I can recreate one in the lab, but I can't quite yet envision the chick in the egg clucking. Damn, where'd I put that lab coat? Honey! Get me a beer, will you?
>>>>>
>>> I have told you that you are unresponsive to what you reply to. It appears even this sarcasm didn't push you to actually respond to what is actually said.
>>>
>> You are lucky that I didn't bother to respond to everything because it
>> is obviously something that needed no response. Just think of how
>> stupid you made yourself out to be.
>>
> As I already knew, responding to you is a waste of time. And you end with insult.
> So anyway, I made the attempt. It likely won't ever happen again.

As you already knew, you should have just snipped and ran, and likely
lied about it like you usually do.

>
> Continue with your ranting, Ron. Just remember if you can (though I doubt you can) that I won't bother trying to reason with you in the future, and don't be surprised that at the first sign of insult or silliness on your part you'll get snipped without reading the rest, and you can go merrily upward and onward with your silly accusations and reposting of reposts of reposts, with maybe the occasional addition of a url to another of your reposted repost posts.
>
>

Now you should have some idea of why you snip and run. What did you
learn about this god-of-the-gaps argument? Do you think that it is part
of the Top Six because they called it IC? You likely wouldn't have put
it up if you knew that this was supposed to be an IC IDiot bunch of
nonsense. It is just one more bit of IDiot evidence to run from. What
did the designer do over 3 billion years ago when he put a membrane
around the first self replicators? What was the plan and why did it
take him so long to evolve the eukaryotic membrane repair processes
talked about in this denial article? When did the designer evolve
eukaryotes? When did the designer make the cytoskeleton of eukaryotes
necessary? One of the membrane repair mechanisms is needed due to the
tension place on the membrane by the cytoskeleton, but cellular
lifeforms didn't always have one. It evolved to its present form when
some eukaryotes gave up their cell walls, but needed some structure, and
they wanted to maintain the ability to engulf things that they wanted
inside (phagocytosis).

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 6:26:04 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 9:07 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:46:03 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2021 4:45 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 4:21:04 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 6/1/2021 1:58 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>> "Membrane repair would have been necessary with the first cell."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Read the rest at
> >>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/zip-it-how-cells-repair-leaking-membranes/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Must a reproducing lifeform be contained within a membrane?
> >>>>>> Is it conceivable that the environment of early Earth was not hostile to what we understand living things are made up of, and needed no protective membrane?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This appears to be the first original and relevant "chicken or egg" problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems I neglected to provide this;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic Earth."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10893692_The_First_Cell_Membranes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would these scientists have been aware of the thousands of machiney thingies and other very complex structures that comprise cell membranes?
> >>>
> >>> First of all, I congratulate you for not beginning a post with an insult, leading question or assuming the conclusion,
> >>> so I'm compelled to respond to your whole post.
> >> You run

You run.

[Glenn]

hmm.

> So membranes didn't exist, and life floated around getting everything together so that it could make a membrane and jump in it. And you attribute that to the authors of the papers I posted? And you think I'm the idiot pulling switch scams?? Good lord almighty.

"But this sort of pre-adaptation, as it is sometimes called, fits with intriguing models of “front-loaded” design where organisms appear pre-adapted or front-loaded to produce certain features, even though they are not yet needed for an organism to survive and reproduce."

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/revealing-darrel-falks-overstatements-about-limb-bones-in-fish-fins/

[Öö Tiib]

No one knows how during the Devonian fins evolved to limbs. We have mudskippers and
lungfishes but these possibly appeared later, not during Devonian. No fossils of those.
Have you link to story how some intelligent agent did it? If no then somehow fins had to
morph into limbs and the only explanation aired so far is that these evolved.

Mudskipper fins:

https://zoologicalletters.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40851-018-0105-z/figures/1

Article about it:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/34/eabc3510

[Ron Dean]

Zipped