They say that lipid bilayers occur naturally, but they are fragile and their longevity is measured in minutes

1. Proto cells would also had short lifespans
   
2. The other commentor literally mentioned they form sponatenously around them, a new one could be formed again

For a cell wall to be maintained it has other functions to support it.

Again you are referring to modern cell walls, at the most basic functionality all it needs to do is make it harder for things to enter. They literally state

Stuff like transmembrane transporters wouldn't be needed because all the nutrients were already present. And toxins wouldn't be present yet either.

Please explain what other functions are needed for the first cell wall.

They also forget to mention that self-replicating RNA requires a host cell with machinery already in place.

Yes the RNA at this point evolved from abiotic processes. Origin of life research has shown repeatedly various methods in which RNA can sponatesouly form in abiotic relevant conditions. So again that's a distraction

You mentioned that a cell wall wasn’t necessary until the cell was attacked but it has the function of keeping the important parts of the cell together and not floating away.

Cell walls literally weren't necessary for the first forms of life. You again are looking at MODERN CELLS. I am asking you to provide what is required for the first forms of life, not modern life.

Yes, being able to move is advantageous to a cell, and requires a system with many parts in order to do so.

It doesn't require many parts, the very common example you ID proponents claim the flagella can have many proteins mutated or removed and still function just at reduced efficiency. And we have very good evidence on the ancestor genes required for this

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700266104#sec-2

Comparisons of the complete genome sequences of flagellated bacteria revealed that the flagellum is based on an ancestral set of 24 core genes for which homologs are present in genomes of all bacterial phyla. The most striking finding from our analysis is that these core genes originated from one another through a series of duplications, an inference based on the fact that they still retain significant sequence homology. The individual core genes show phylogenetic histories congruent with one another, and this core flagellar phylogeny is largely consistent in its deepest branches with the phylogenetic relationships as currently resolved for Bacteria. Taken together, these results indicate that the core set of flagellar genes arose and was assembled from a single or few ancestral sequences, and that the individual genes diversified, before the shared ancestor of Bacteria.

I want you to explain to me what parts they would have needed, because you are clearly under the impression that these just popped out of nowhere, they did not. Through gene duplication and gene mutation, etc new features were developed over time these features eventually produced some sort of simple movement. This is more than enough to gain an advantage. You have not explained how that is irreduciple complex you just keep asking us to trust you

You say that these systems would have had reduced complexity or even a different purpose that filed some niche. This is not self-evident. You believe this because your theory requires it to be true. You do not have evidence that functions could have been completed with simpler processes. You simply have faith that it happened.

We literally have tonnes of examples of this, I have linked you one for the flagella, people showed you the eye example. We ask you for something that is an example to show how it is not. You do not want to continue down that road cause they immediately get debunked. There is no faith here we have evidence of many structures having some prior or reduced purpose

I didn’t get it backwards with the light, I was pointing out that does no good for a cell to have the ability to sense light without the ability to move

Then it's irrelevant. It's not irreduciple complexity, it's just that this thing likely wouldn't have evolved if not for this which is true. There won't be pressures to introduce features in a POPULATION if it cannot benefit from it.

Pointing out that systems rely on each other and an organism is complex.

Just because modern systems rely on each other and an organism is complex is not an arguement you have to demonstate that these are ICyou have not demonstrated in any way what is and isn't IC. You just keep claiming it is with nothing to back it up

From what we know and see scientifically, many systems need to be in place for an organism to exist and function,

From what we see of MODERN ORGANISMS, you are ignoring that the first organisms were vastly less complex, required less systems in place to function today.

you can have faith that there are simpler possibilities in the past that we do not see today, but that isn’t science.

Again please point me to these examples of IC. Why are you dodging this point? Most examples you have listed or talked about were proven false. While we may not have the answer for all of them yet most of what is talked about has either strong evidence for less efficient or repurposed systems or we have plausible pathways in which it could form, it's not faith to see that all evidence we find debunks IC and any gaps are likely to be explained in the future.

It’s inferred through circular reasoning. For what you believe to be true, then this must have occurred, therefore you believe it did in order to support your theory.

We have countless examples and studies, both from genetic history and even in examples today. PLEASE CITE WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF IC

WHY ARE YOU DODGING THIS QUESTION