Association Induction Hypothesis Thread

Come here to talk about the true model of the cell, based on water structuring

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(surface_science)
rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3wgu
rcsb.org/pdb/protein/P05024
jhc.sagepub.com/content/16/3/157.full.pdf html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No one cares nerd

Thank you for your contribution

/thread

How bad does this trigger you OP?

It doesn't? I see a stained image. I don't see conclusive evidence of a lipid membrane. It could just as easily be evidence of an electrical double layer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(surface_science)

That makes little sense since the stain is specifically designed to differentiate between water and lipids. If the stain stained water then the entire image would be dark.

I did not say that it stained all water. Rather, it reacted to the electrical double layer, which exists only on the edge of the cell

But it doesn't stain electrical double layers. The stains used are nonpolar, like osmium tetroxide. Otherwise they would not be able to penetrate the lipid bilayer. You can't argue that electrical double layers appear the same as lipid bilayers, because they are chemically very different.

Osmium tetroxide can also stain gelatin gel, which is just protein and water. No lipid membrane necessary. If we both agree a cell has protein and water, then an image like this cannot distinguish between our models.

Also, how does the stain perfectly surround the cell? A cell membrane is supposed to be embedded with a gigantic number of pumps, channels, proteins, and other stuff, right? Where are they in the image? I saw one estimation that up 75% of the surface area of a cell might not be phospholipids, but rather all of the proteins and such. So by that estimation, only 25% of the perimeter of this cell should stain the way it did. Maybe you think the 75/25 ratio is too high, but you have to admit the phospholipids do not entirely cover the cell.

Is this a cell with no sodium/potassium pump?

Yeah it stains gelatin gel because hydrolized collagen has similar characteristics to the phospholipid head. It won't stain charged water and you can test this for yourself.

Youre retarded

My model is that a cell is like gelatin gel. Whatever your explanation is for the staining of gelatin gel, it would explain this staining, under my model.

Also, your response seems like a contradiction. Earlier you said the stain is specific for non-polar lipids, but now you're saying it will stain collagen. Is collagen a non-polar lipid or is this a deviation from the initial claim? What does it stain?

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

>A cell membrane is supposed to be embedded with a gigantic number of pumps, channels, proteins, and other stuff, right? Where are they in the image?
As you already know, the black part of the image is the stain. You can't see what isn't stained. Not to mention that this is only a small slice of the cell, and I doubt electron microscopy has the resolution to see something as small as a sodium pump.

But I'm glad you mentioned the sodium pump since it is another big piece of evidence against the AIH, considering that we've isolated the gene and protein sequence of the sodium pump and we've even determined it's crystal structure directly:

rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=3wgu

Everything youve said so far ignores actual research. Are you trying to assert a conspiracy or are you drunk?

>My model is that a cell is like gelatin gel. Whatever your explanation is for the staining of gelatin gel, it would explain this staining, under my model.
Then that fails since cells that are stained with osmium tetroxide don't look the same as gelatin gel stained with osmium tetroxide. If the cell was like gelatin gel then the entire cell would be darkly stained, not just the outside.

>Earlier you said the stain is specific for non-polar lipids, but now you're saying it will stain collagen.
No I didn't. I said it's designed to differentiate between water and lipids. That doesn't mean it can differentiate between anything and lipids.

>Is collagen a non-polar lipid or is this a deviation from the initial claim?
As I already said, hydrolized collagen, which is the protein in gelatin, is similar chemically to lipids. I don't think the AIH says that the cell membrane is made of hydrolized collagen.

The pumps/channels/etc should all interrupt the double black curves that represent the lipid membrane. We should not see two continuous curves in the image, because they should be broken by all of the pumps/channels/etc. What we see should be more like a dotted line.

>Then that fails since cells that are stained with osmium tetroxide don't look the same as gelatin gel stained with osmium tetroxide. If the cell was like gelatin gel then the entire cell would be darkly stained, not just the outside.
You can get different images with osmium textroxide. People just reproduce this image because they like it. You can also stain a cell such that you get a single thick curve, rather than two separate ones.

>I don't think the AIH says that the cell membrane is made of hydrolized collagen.
Gelatin gel does not have a membrane like that, either. Gelatin gel is mostly water. It only takes a tablespoon of gelatin to gel a pint of water.

>The pumps/channels/etc should all interrupt the double black curves that represent the lipid membrane.
Yes, but whether or not you can see those interruptions depends on the resolution of electron microscopy.
You cannot say that there is a continuous band lipids from these images.

And as I already said, the sodium pump and other surface proteins have been isolated and proven beyond doubt.

>You can get different images with osmium textroxide
That doesn't respond to the point. Until you show me that osmium tetroxide stains charged water in the same way, you have failed.

>Gelatin gel does not have a membrane like that, either.
Yes, but why is gelatin your only example? There are plenty of examples of electrical double layers which do not have anything similar to lipids. But you aren't bringing those up because they directly disprove that osmium tetroxide stains electrical double layers.

>Yes, but whether or not you can see those interruptions depends on the resolution of electron microscopy.
We should be able to see it in most images though. The gap between the two dark curves is where the hydrocarbon tails are. Presumably, each hydrocarbon tail is about half as long as the gap is wide, so it can fit two of them.

According to Wikipedia, most of these hydrocarbon chains are only about 20 carbons long, or less. The sodium/potassium pump appears to be much wider than that, so it should be clear in the image.

>Until you show me that osmium tetroxide stains charged water in the same way, you have failed.
Staining gelatin gel is the example. Gelatin gel is mostly water, yet is stained by osmium tetroxide.

>But you aren't bringing those up because they directly disprove that osmium tetroxide stains electrical double layers.
No, I don't bring them up because it's very hard to find literature in which osmium tetroxide stains anything relevant to this discussion.

>According to Wikipedia, most of these hydrocarbon chains are only about 20 carbons long, or less. The sodium/potassium pump appears to be much wider than that, so it should be clear in the image.
No, the diameter of the pump is much smaller than the gap. See pic.

>Staining gelatin gel is the example. Gelatin gel is mostly water, yet is stained by osmium tetroxide.
It being mostly water is not the reason it is stained by osmium tetroxide, because osmium tetroxide does not stain water, or charged water, or electrical double layers, by themselves. You keep ignoring this point because it proves you wrong.

>No, I don't bring them up because it's very hard to find literature in which osmium tetroxide stains anything relevant to this discussion.
Osmium tetroxide is a very common stain for electron microscopy. It's not because it's "hard," it's because such examples do not exist because osmium tetroxide cannot stain water.

>No, the diameter of the pump is much smaller than the gap. See pic.
That does not seem to be implied by the link you posted earlier. This link is from your link:
rcsb.org/pdb/protein/P05024

That thing looks like it should be way more than 20 angstroms across. A hydrogen atom itself is like 0.5 angstroms. How many atoms in diameter is that?

>You keep ignoring this point because it proves you wrong.
Then restate your point clearly because we seem to have a miscommunication. I have claimed that omium tetroxide stains gelatin gel, and that gelatin gel is similar to a cell, which explains why it stains a cell. The eletrical double layer is the explanation for the double-curve image.

Also, you specifically say "osmium tetroxide does not stain water," but gelatin gel is stained by it, and gelatin gel is mostly water. It certainly does not have some sort of dry shell of proteins around the gel which are all stained.

>Osmium tetroxide is a very common stain for electron microscopy. It's not because it's "hard," it's because such examples do not exist because osmium tetroxide cannot stain water.
If things like this are so common, show me an experiment in which osmium tetroxide is used to stain (or fails to stain) the water surrounding nafion. Nafion is good for structuring water, similar to how gelatin is, so it would be a good test of this claim. Osmium tetroxide stain experiments are apparently very common, according to you, so it should be easy to find such an experiment and post a link to it.

wake up sheeple Big Membrane have been fooling us all along

>Also, you specifically say "osmium tetroxide does not stain water," but gelatin gel is stained by it, and gelatin gel is mostly water.
holy shit, you are retarded.
vinegar is also mostly water, and it will cause carbonate to decompose. that does not mean that water causes the decomposition of carbonate; rather, a minor constituent (ethanoic acid) is responsible for this effect.
you're clinging to an insinuation that can be disproved by the example of a baking soda volcano. hot damn. I'm not even that other guy, but...

If carbonate is mixed into vinegar, I would expect it to interact with the acetic acid. If carbonate reacted with only the surface of a droplet of vinegar, but appeared to have the same uniform reaction all around the droplet's surface, I would be skeptical that the small amount of acetic acid in the droplet would be responsible. These are different cases.

Here we go, here is a picture from your earlier link. This does not look like it should only be 20 angstroms across.

>That does not seem to be implied by the link you posted earlier. This link is from your link:
>rcsb.org/pdb/protein/P05024
Where does it measure the diameter? It doesn't imply anything. If you'd like to provide a source which actually measures the diameter and contradicts my source go ahead. It would be very ironic though considering you are presenting evidence of something which your argument claims doesn't even exist.

>Then restate your point clearly because we seem to have a miscommunication. I have claimed that omium tetroxide stains gelatin gel, and that gelatin gel is similar to a cell, which explains why it stains a cell.
And I have explained how this argument is too simplistic, since it ignores that

a) osmium tetroxide stains collagen, not the water
b) it does not stain gelatin gel like it stains the cell

So far you have presented no evidence that it stains water.

>The eletrical double layer is the explanation for the double-curve image.
Then show me an electrical double layer stained with osmium tetroxide.

>Also, you specifically say "osmium tetroxide does not stain water," but gelatin gel is stained by it, and gelatin gel is mostly water.
This is an example of extreme sophistry. You oversimplify and ignore the details of the argument in order to create a strawman.

>It certainly does not have some sort of dry shell of proteins around the gel which are all stained.
Gelatin is structured by a matrix of collagen proteins which holds the water. It's a web, not a shell.

>If things like this are so common, show me an experiment in which osmium tetroxide is used to stain (or fails to stain) the water surrounding nafion.
The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that osmium tetroxide stains water and not some other molecule. The lack of such evidence is proof that it does not.

>This does not look like it should only be 20 angstroms across.
How many angstroms across is it? Forgive me if I don't take what something "looks like" to you as proof.

>It's a web, not a shell.
Yes, but a very scarce web. A pint (454 g) of water is gelled by a tablespoon (11 g) of gelatin. So less than 2.5% of the mass is actually gelatin.

>Where does it measure the diameter?
Look at the picture. An angstrom is at least half the width of an atom. That's more than 40 atoms across.

Those helices are alpha-helices, right? Each one should be about 5.4 angstroms in width.

>It's a web, not a shell.
Also, if you admit that the gelatin forms a web, rather than a shell, how does the osmium tetroxide stain the entire surface of the gelatin gel? You admit the surface is not entirely gelatin, but the surface is entirely stained. So that would imply water being stained.

>If carbonate reacted with only the surface of a droplet of vinegar, but appeared to have the same uniform reaction all around the droplet's surface, I would be skeptical that the small amount of acetic acid in the droplet would be responsible.
and you'd be WRONG, bub.
how big do you think molecules are, relative to a droplet?

>Then show me an electrical double layer stained with osmium tetroxide.
here you go

The size of a molecule relative to the size of a droplet is irrelevant. It's the relative sizes of ethanol and water that are important, and their relative distributions.

Commercial vinegar is usually 5% acetic acid. That means less than 2% of the molecules are actually acetic acid. Water and acetic acid have similar densities, so if the acetic acid molecules are uniformly distributed, then less than 2% of the surface of the droplet should be acetic acid.

>less than 2% of the surface of the droplet should be acetic acid.
yes, this is true.
but the fact that you think this will cause a patchy pattern of decomposition shows that you think those molecules are large relative to the droplet they make up. if the resolution is coarse enough to see the droplet, it's too coarse to see the individual molecules.

>Yes, but a very scarce web. A pint (454 g) of water is gelled by a tablespoon (11 g) of gelatin. So less than 2.5% of the mass is actually gelatin.
So what?

>Look at the picture. An angstrom is at least half the width of an atom. That's more than 40 atoms across.
The picture doesn't even show atoms. Again, why don't you just find a source that measures the diameter?

>how does the osmium tetroxide stain the entire surface of the gelatin gel?
It doesn't. You seem to be confusing two concepts here. From an electron microscopy perspective, what staining means is that the stain binds to a specific molecule. However, staining from a macroscopic perspective does not necessarily involve binding, but simple diffusion of a stain into a solution. The fact that osmium tetroxide will diffuse through gelatin is not remarkable since practically any chemical will diffuse through it. What is unique about osmium tetroxide is that it will bind to the collagen in gelatin. It does not bind to the water. This paper discusses how bound osmium is determined:

jhc.sagepub.com/content/16/3/157.full.pdf html