Is this the new flat earth?

Looks that way....god damn it.

Thank god for people like you googling jpegs for the sake of science.. Can't believe all those damn liars and their microscopes.

...

You can spend $400 on a microscope and see 'animal' cells for yourself. You don't have to believe the scientists... In fact, you probably already did it yourself in high school and forgot.

Now give your head a shake and go outside for a while.

There is a difference between lying and just being incorrect

I agree with you that OP is incorrect, however I also think you are incorrect.

You are incorrect for squandering an opportunity to share you knowledge in a way that not only might connect with OP (probably not, they will surely argue for their own position on the subject) but you might also connect with however many people read the top comment of this post.

Some of them may not have any personal knowledge of the subject and will be presented exclusively with OP's pictures and then a nasty snark from an internet commentor. I argue that snark alone doesn't provide any meaningful alternative to OP's information and is thus an inferior position to OP.

And while you position snarkishly "thank God for people who Google pictures" I will do the same and say "thank God for people who snarkishly comment and provide no information". What would we do without "them"?

Thanks for calling me out, I actually agree. I shouldn't have been condescending.

Sometimes I just question the motives of people who put huge effort into a theory, while ignoring basic principles (in this case, how simple it is to view animal cells in real life).

Internet Jesus forgives you.

Truth is no longer allowed...

The ones barking the loudest are the dumbest of them all...

Speak only if it is to improve upon the silence...

So, you've never taken an undergraduate anatomy & physiology class available at any community college?

Mate do you think he made it past freshman bio in hs?

....

The most relevant username that I've ever seen.

Look up Gilbert Ling.

so when I'm at work and my experimental procedure is to isolate neutrophils from blood and co-incubate them with bacteria, the cells aren't actually cells and are both bacteria? do you know how insane this all sounds?

you got one thing almost right, two eukaryotic organelles were probably once microorganisms; the chlorophyllplast and mitochondrion. they both have their own DNA and independent cellular replication mechanisms

I think you may be arguing semantics. Maybe the point the OP is making is that the cell membrane concept/construct for living animal cells may be not an entirely accurate paradigm. The "cells" are separate entities, of course, but the concept of the cell membrane in animals doesn't pan out in terms of the physics and the chemistry.

If it does, then please answer this basic question:

Using cell membrane theory please explain the physics behind how a cell membrane separates sodium from potassium in a living animal?

edit: or to put it in simpler form, explain the physics behind the sodium pump concept.

OP is posturing we have RBCs but our organs are made of tissue, but the tissue itself isn't composed of cells. This is demonstrably incorrect since you can take a histological sample and stain it to see cells. Not to mention, I grow human fibroblasts in vitro and perform immuno-fluorescence regularly. These are clearly self-replicating, compartmentalized living things encased in a membrane aka a cell.

also, I don't fully understand what you're asking. Separating Na and K from an animal... like filtration in a nephron? or are you asking about transmembrane proteins that use ATP to shuttle Na and K in and out of the cytoplasm across the membrane?

also, I don't fully understand what you're asking.

The cell membrane pump. aka sodium-potassium pump. aka active transport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_transport

It is a physically impossible concept.

What separates the cells? Is it an actual membrane? That is physically impossible.

go on..

Why is it physically impossible?

The amount of energy that it would take is biologically akd physically impossible. The math.

You've done the math? Please elaborate

No I haven't. No one has successfully done the math that explains how a membrane can actively separate sodium and potassium as is seen within and without cells.

I'm asking you to provide the math. The physics.

The physics is that adenosine triphosphate (our friend ATP) is coupled to membrane protein changes that move things against their concentration gradient.

The math side is supported by the fact that ATP production and hydrolysis are balanced by the cell to be non-standard, which means that the body can make like 1/2 its own weigh in ATP every single day, and a huge percentage of that goes towards maintaining the Na/K membrane potential. It is a monumental effort to do so, but it has been shown to occur in every excitable cell of which animals have plenty

Link? Cite?

My citations are the fundamental papers and experiments that make the biochemistry and biophysics fields lol. If those are wrong then all of our lives are based on nonsense and every piece of electronics and biotech that works actually runs on magic. And it helps that the papers make sense too

Did you know that MRI technology isn't based on the concepts of cell membrane theory? It's based on Ling's ideas. The single biggest live cell imaging system development since the advent of radiographs. Go figure.

Well no shit, why would knowledge of the cell membrane lead to MRI? They're completely different fields; biology vs imaging. Hell, people barely even use MRI on cells, and that's only in the last 10 years. The Na/K potential is so obvious that people were able to predict nerve behavior using it in like the 50s.

Science has a dirty history, but cell theory is the wrong windmill to tilt at

Hell, people don't even use MRI on cells.

LOL. WTF do you think human flesh is made of? And what do we use MRI to image? Rocks?

There goes your credibility. You're not very bright are you?

MRI images either water or hydrogen nuclei, and the density of them, so you aren't imaging individual cells, you're imaging densities of those nuclei in human tissues. Single cell level resolution was only achieved in 2006.

Dude, stop. You're making a fool of yourself, and you're being rude to someone who is taking their time to educate you.

I'm always down for skepticism of our current understanding of science, I've never heard of this Ling guy but I'll take a look at this paper when I have time

The document my phone downloads doesn't have 125 pages...

No. You don't get to put the burden on proof on biologists, especially when the claim is that the math doesn't add up which is given wihtout a link or a cite itself.

So what I'm taking from this is we're all Swamp Thing. Good to know.

Sorry OP, but I spend everyday looking at actual cells through a microscope, I can assure you they are real. All nuclei are not uniform size or shape either, there are in fact many different sized nuclei depending on the type of cell and it's function in the body. I'd recommend taking a class with a clinical section or picking up a cheap microscope and see for yourself.

then explain sperm, explain the Immune system, explain respiration

And this is the basis for their satanic religion of 'modern medicine'.

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7737581/picard_facepalm1.jpg

But it turns out that animal cell division and plant cell division look almost exactly the same!

Homie, that shit's mitosis.

The physics is that adenosine triphosphate (our friend ATP) is coupled to membrane protein changes that move things against their concentration gradient.

The math side is supported by the fact that ATP production and hydrolysis are balanced by the cell to be non-standard, which means that the body can make like 1/2 its own weigh in ATP every single day, and a huge percentage of that goes towards maintaining the Na/K membrane potential. It is a monumental effort to do so, but it has been shown to occur in every excitable cell of which animals have plenty

Link? Cite?