Cell biology Intelligent Design

Film premieres today: Cell membranes as a challenge in the origin of life

Spread the love

Cells can’t exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes. This is the third of several episodes about the origin of life presented as part of the Long Story Short series.

Here are earlier episodes of Long Story Short, an education you actually have time for.

10 Replies to “Film premieres today: Cell membranes as a challenge in the origin of life

  1. 1
    zweston says:

    I really enjoy that series. The cell membrane is amazing… I find myself absolutely confounded at the incredible intelligence and creativity of our creator. Wow.

    I’m waiting for a non-sequitur from the black knights

  2. 2
    martin_r says:



    i watched it yesterday already.

    How can a Darwinist rationally comment on all the features of a cell membrane ? :)))) It evolved ? God of the gaps ?? :)))))) All the features had to be in place for the very first moment, OTHERWISE THE CELL WON’T WORK !!!! It is a irreducibly complex system. Period.
    (And we creationists are the stupid ones … )

    However, there was a very interesting moment in that video, the fact i did not realize before:

    What is the minimum number of genes essential for a bacteria to survive ? You surely heard about this issue before. They knocked out lots of genes to prove that you don’t need any genes or i don’t know what they wanted to prove, but later they find out, that they need to put the bacteria on ‘life support’ and to feed it with a special food, because the bacteria alone wasn’t able to ‘prepare the food’ by itself (because of knocked out/missing genes) … in other words, in real life the bacteria would die … So you can keep it alive in lab, but not in real life. But a Darwinian cheater would say – Look! It can survive with only a few genes, life doesn’t need to be very complex :)))))) (and people like Seversky, Chuck and co. will buy it)

    Yeah, with only a few 470 genes :))))

    here is the moment, just click the link it will bring you there:


    It is clear, that in that video, in respect to complexity of the cell membrane, they only scratched the surface (the other day i came across a paper on cell membrane’s repair) … Darwin’s theory of evolution is getting more absurd every day…. For 19th century, it was alright, but today ? :)))) This theory is absurd in the highest possible degree … it is not only absurd, it is also very insulting … basically, it is a hoax, a fake news…

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    Incredible video.

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    from a mainstream paper:

    A eukaryotic cell is separated from the extracellular environment by a plasma membrane composed of a phospholipid bilayer containing
    proteins that regulate transit of molecules into
    and out of the cell. Loss of this barrier function
    can lead to compromised cellular homeostasis
    and death of the cell. Most cells are subjected to
    mechanical or chemical stresses that can disrupt
    the plasma membrane; thus there is strong selective pressure to ensure the integrity of this

    there is a strong selective pressure ????? no kidding … these natural science graduates …

    How on earth, a strong selective pressure knows how to repair a complex bilayer cell membrane. No scientist knows, but ‘a strong selective pressure’ always knows. How a strong selective pressure knows hot to repair anything ? How a strong selective pressure even knows, that there is something broken ????

    What rational educated person can buy this Darwinian nonsense? (Seversky, chuck & Co. excluded).


  5. 5
    EvilSnack says:

    Every person who comes up with a new scientific theory is told that for the new theory to be accepted, it must provide a better explanation for all observations than the currently-accepted theory covering the same topic, and make better predictions. Darwinism was given a pass on this. It explains nothing that the Genesis account leaves unexplained, and predicts nothing that cannot be predicted by Genesis, but was ushered in to the halls of academia nonetheless.

  6. 6
    KRock says:

    Many people are starting to wake up to the fact that Neo-Darwinism is no longer a compatible theory with respect to the origins of life. And I think this paradigm shift owes its success to grassroots movements, such as from this website and others like it. I’ve noticed at my place of employment, for example, that the vast majority of my co-workers—both new and old—are more willing than ever to except facets of ID as a legitimate explanation for the origins of life, especially after being shown a video like the one above. Indeed, Neo-Darwinism is now in a state of decay.

  7. 7
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KRock @6
    I notice the same thing.
    In fact, all the comments on this video are saying the same thing. Darwinism is a useless idea.
    Years ago, a video like this would be swarmed with atheists and their ridicule.
    All of that is going away.

  8. 8
    zweston says:


    Lukas posts again… “We are all religious” – Lawrence Krauss

  9. 9
    martin_r says:

    Zweston @8

    let me add to yours, here Dawkins admits to intelligent design


  10. 10

Leave a Reply