None of his references show what you claimed. Let me remind you of what you claimed:
This however, is untrue, we need homochirality from the start, otherwise electron flow gets disrupted, and overheating would occur.
None of Tour’s references substantiate that point. It is not even weakly implied by any of them.
If you can’t remember which thread you were talking about that would seem to be your problem.]
It does - at least if you understand what Axe is saying.
No, you couldn’t. Remember my assertion is that Axe does not offer anything like sufficient support for his claim. Asking me to prove Axe’s claim wrong would be a diversion.
I’ll take that as a “yes”. So my point still stands, I’ll add some detail, “ATP is not being used like it gets used for energy in a cell.” Sure, I can put a hammer on the floor and stand on it to raise myself, but that’s not what people will accept as what I should mean if I say “I’m using a hammer.”
Well, certainly I meant a living cell! That should have been plain.
My point is that it’s fine if you can put parts together, but you need the interactome. That’s the part you skip over, that is the disconnect.
Did you miss this reference? “The recently discovered chiral induced spin selectivity (CISS) effect gives rise to a spin selective electron transmission through biomolecules. Here we review the mechanism behind the CISS effect and its implication for processes in Biology. Specifically, three processes are discussed: long-range electron transfer, spin effects on the oxidation of water, and enantioselectivity in bio-recognition events. These phenomena imply that chirality and spin may play several important roles in biology, which have not been considered so far.”
“Important roles in biology” is directly applicable to the point that we need homochirality, presumably from the start, “long-range electron transfer”, disrupting that at any time, causes problems, overheating, notably.
It should be obvious. But not to you, evidently.
I challenge you to quote a single OOL researcher who has ever claimed to be on the verge of being able to create a working cell from scratch. Just one.
Or simply admit that, yet again, Tour is full of shit.
IOW, progress. Something that bullshit artist you worship claims has never happened.
LMAO
This is just you being in denial.
If you can declare yourself the spokesperson of people, so can I. People will in fact accept that. The difference is I know a hell of a lot more cell and molecular biology than you.
Sorry buddy, the ATP gets used to power a chemical reaction that also occurs in extant cells: To power the process of transcription.
Prove it.
I’ve said I don’t remember having a discussion with you about this, you said you did, and you have not yet pointed me to specific posts. I don’t see how I have to defend your statement.
But that is not an explanation.
But that’s how you have a discussion, you make a claim, then you defend it.
Um … Lee? the Interactome isn’t “a thing”, it is (briefly) the set of molecular interactions in a particular cell. Living cells have been assembled, therefore they must have sufficient function to respire and (presumably) reproduce, implying they have an interactome sufficient for this purpose. It’s not necessary to “put” the interactome into a cell, you put the parts in a cell and the protein they create interact.
So all this time you have been harping on about the Interactome, and you don’t even understand what it is. 
Discourse is glitchy today and I can’t see the whole review queue, so I’m moving this thread into Side Convo for the present. Play nice! 
Certainly they will, but they can’t be allowed to just interact in any old way! Defects in the interactome produce disease. And certainly I’m not claiming the interactome is something you can pick up and put in a cell! That’s why I say you can assemble the components, but that doesn’t make it function properly.
But that’s not the same as including it into a larger molecule, making like a nucleotide. That would be incorporating the ATP, not using it.
What you point to is like putting a battery in a chain, like a paper chain, and then saying you’re using the battery. Not if you’re not plugging it in, you’re not.
Important biological functions don’t just come and go, saying a function is important implies it’s needed, not optional.
No, Tour’s claim was the OOL scientists predicted at conferences, several times that in a few years they would have made life in the lab. The claim, naming names, was in this video. He mentioned (17:00) that Jack Szostak said in 2014 to a gathering in New York of lay people that he would have life in his lab in 3 to 5 years. Years later, he’s still working on the RNA, just the RNA, and he missed the deadline. Then Dimitar Sasselov said at the same gathering, it’s probably like 5, and not 3. Then Steve Benner said on a podcast that most of the, many of the paradoxes in origin of life have been solved. Then Tour remarked that none of them are solved, that he went to Benner and asked him what had been solved, and Benner had no answer. Then Tour mentioned that Lee Cronin has said in 2011 that within a couple of years he would have made life in his laboratory. They’re nowhere close! Tour said.
Nope! Not if you claimed you had hit a home run, that homochirality was not required, you rounded the bases, and then you got sent back to second base. That’s still going backwards.
When people say “One step forward, two steps back”, they don’t mean they’re making progress, they mean the opposite.
I see, for some arbitrarily imposed definition of “properly”. No, all that is required is for the function to be sufficient. You really do have a thing with moving goalposts. 
“Diseased” cells also function, at least if they do not kill the organism outright. Consider that as cellular functions evolved they must necessarily have been in some precursor state that would have a lower level of function(s) than moderns cells. This would not be “diseased”; it would be functional and well adapted to the environment in comparison to other cells. The goalpost you are trying to impose it like saying the Ford Model-T was a diseased form of automobile. No - the Model-T was top of the line innovation for it’s time.
In science it’s usually a case of two steps forward, one step back. Progress is usually incremental. We have ~500 years of scientific innovations to support this.
Prove it.
LMAO. Dude keep digging.
I mention that to show that just any interaction, won’t do. That was what you seemed to be saying, put the components together, they interact, we’re done. Now you seem to be confirming this, saying whatever interaction that happens after assembly is good enough! It may be defective, the cell may limp along, but it’s still an active cell, a living cell. So you need to defend this, if this is your view. You can’t just assume that whatever interaction occurs, gives some level of function.
The problem is staggering! James Tour quotes one estimate of the number of just the protein-protein interactions in a yeast cell as 1 in 10^79,000,000,000, that’s a ridiculously large number. So picking just one, and saying it will work well enough, seems indefensible.
But in this instance, the claim was “we don’t actually need homochirality”. We find out we do, and someone proposes a way to get halfway there, for one type of molecule. So we didn’t get back to where we thought we were, we’ve lost ground, we’ve gone backwards from the progress we thought we had made.
My point still stands, this is not what people will think you mean when you say ATP is being used, is functioning in a protocell. I don’t need to keep digging, you need to respond…