Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2018 1:08 AM
233 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, PaulK, RAZD (5 members, 228 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,525 Year: 15,348/29,783 Month: 1,292/1,502 Week: 49/241 Day: 2/47 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 16 of 191 (533124)
10-28-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
10-28-2009 11:16 PM


Hi Buzsaw,

Buzsaw writes:

2. It would seem that the less complex a compound of chemicals is, the more subject to entropy it would be, having no ability to naturally select or randomly mutate successive stages into something more complex until life emerged, not to mention the likelihood, if life emerged to survive long enough to reverse entropy pressure for advancement into complexity sufficient to replicate or divide.

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't oppose an increase of complexity within a non-isolated system. This is apparent in the development of any creature. A chick developing inside an egg is becoming more and more complex, yet is not violating the second law of thermodynamics.

Thus, the first replicating molecules did not have to break any natural laws in order to become more complex. However, you are right in saying that the first life would probably not have had as sophisticated copying-error repair mechanisms as modern life forms do. This would have led to increased mutation rates, which might not have been a bad thing at the time.

Buzsaw writes:

having no ability to naturally select or randomly mutate successive stages into something more complex until life emerged

Natural selection would have worked equally well on replicating molecules as it does on modern lifeforms. Any molecule that replicated faster than its competitors would soon be in abundance. Molecules that weren't as easily destroyed by forces of nature, or other molecules, would also do well.

Buzsaw writes:

complexity sufficient to replicate or divide.

Which may have been the first thing to appear. Without replication, there is no evolution, and so the simplest possible evolving lifeform would be one that was only capable of replicating itself. Self-replication does not necessitate much complexity. Some scientists (including Richard Dawkins) have proposed replication could have started off with inorganic compounds like clay.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2009 11:16 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:16 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 191 (533128)
10-29-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
10-28-2009 11:51 PM


Is There A Model?
Thank you, Meldinoor. Are you aware of any scientific models remotely depicting the random process which Bluejay explained?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 10-28-2009 11:51 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 12:18 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 19 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:26 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1217 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 191 (533129)
10-29-2009 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 12:16 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Buzsaw writes:

Are you aware of any scientific models remotely depicting the random process which Bluejay explained?


I'm sorry, but I have to ask you a question. Being a christian, do you enjoy lying outright like this? Random process? Do you enjoy being a liar?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:16 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:35 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:48 AM Taz has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 19 of 191 (533130)
10-29-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 12:16 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Hi Buzsaw,

That really depends what you are refering to. Are you refering to the development of these self-replicating molecules into living cells? If that's the case the theory of evolution provides an excellent model (itself).

Or are you referring to the formation of self-replicating molecules? There are many suggestions as to how life's precursors might have formed. Nobody knows exactly how life originated, nor do I expect we will ever know to 100%. There are so many possible answers to that question.

I suggest you look at the wiki page on abiogenesis for a summary of several hypotheses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:16 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:00 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 191 (533132)
10-29-2009 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
10-29-2009 12:18 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Taz writes:

I'm sorry, but I have to ask you a question. Being a christian, do you enjoy lying outright like this? Random process? Do you enjoy being a liar?

Hi Taz. I'm not a liar. I do make mistakes and errors. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me, or is enlightenment not a virtue of tazmanian devils?

Online Dictionary: Number One Definition: Process: 1. A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result:


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 12:18 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(3)
Message 21 of 191 (533133)
10-29-2009 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
10-29-2009 12:18 AM


Play nice
Hi Taz,

While I agree that biological evolution and chemical evolution are not random processes, I don't think Buzsaw was trying to disparage these processes by using the word "random". You have to remember that to a person who holds a creationist belief in a purposeful creation, any non-purposeful, undirected natural process will appear "random". In any case, his post was not about the "randomness" of life's development, he was just asking for a scientific explanation for abiogenesis. We must remember to be sensitive to other people's worldviews and not pounce on semantics if we are to keep a civil debate.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 12:18 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:07 AM Meldinoor has responded
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 10-29-2009 4:32 PM Meldinoor has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 22 of 191 (533135)
10-29-2009 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 12:26 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Meldinoor writes:

That really depends what you are refering to. Are you refering to the development of these self-replicating molecules into living cells? If that's the case the theory of evolution provides an excellent model (itself).

1. Wouldn't that run counter to the claim that evolution and abiogenesis are different processes?

2. By the same token, I have been chastized for using fulfilled prophecy, historical data and archeological discoveries as supportive to the Genesis record in that both imply existence of a supernatural dimension of intelligence present in the universe, capable of effecting intelligently designed life origins.

3. You said, "....you are right in saying that the first life would probably not have had as sophisticated copying-error repair mechanisms as modern life forms do."

That would appear as problematic relative to a sufficient model.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:26 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 1:25 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 191 (533136)
10-29-2009 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 12:48 AM


Re: Randomness
Meldinoor writes:

While I agree that biological evolution and chemical evolution are not random processes, I don't think Buzsaw was trying to disparage these processes by using the word "random". You have to remember that to a person who holds a creationist belief in a purposeful creation, any non-purposeful, undirected natural process will appear "random". In any case, his post was not about the "randomness" of life's development, he was just asking for a scientific explanation for abiogenesis. We must remember to be sensitive to other people's worldviews and not pounce on semantics if we are to keep a civil debate.

Thanks very much, Meldinoor.

Did I mistakenly take the term "process" as Taz's problem? (ABE: Or perhaps his problem was the usage of random and process as cohesive terms.) Your statement above appears to imply that the process is not actually random (ABE: relative to the matter at hand). Is that correct?

Edited by Buzsaw, : ABE as noted in context.

Edited by Buzsaw, : change "coherant" to "cohesive"


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 12:48 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 1:41 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 24 of 191 (533138)
10-29-2009 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 1:00 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Hi Buzsaw,

Buzsaw writes:

1. Wouldn't that run counter to the claim that evolution and abiogenesis are different processes?

Not really. The first self-replicating molecules could well be considered life already, so abiogenesis has already occurred at this point.

Buzsaw writes:

2. By the same token, I have been chastized for using fulfilled prophecy, historical data and archeological discoveries as supportive to the Genesis record in that both imply existence of a supernatural dimension of intelligence present in the universe, capable of effecting intelligently designed life origins.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Prophecy, historical data, and archaeological discoveries all pertain to relatively recent data. You can't derive any direct evidence for the genesis account from these.

On the other hand, scientific observations have shown how very basic life is able to thrive and evolve. I don't have the source handy right now, but I read about an experiment where a virus was put in a beaker with a solute that provided all the necessary amino acids for it to replicate. As it evolved inside the beaker, with no need to find cells to infect, and no need to defend itself from threats, it gradually began to lose these traits in favor of a genome that replicated faster. Eventually, after many generations (and several beakers) the viruses were essentially reduced to a replicating molecule, with little function besides that of speedy replication.

While this is not a "proof" of any abiogenesis hypothesis, it does show how even the simplest life forms evolve through natural selection, and how little function is required to sustain life. I don't remember how small they got the genome in the end, but I will look it up and give an ABE unless someone else beats me to it.

Buzsaw writes:

3. You said, "....you are right in saying that the first life would probably not have had as sophisticated copying-error repair mechanisms as modern life forms do."

That would appear as problematic relative to a sufficient model.

Not really. If you think about it, modern organisms are highly dependent on copying fidelity. This is because we have so many parts that can go wrong. Mutations can lead to any number of defects of the heart, or neural development etc. For a replicating molecule who's only function is to replicate, there really isn't much to lose. The only bad thing that can happen is if a mutation significantly altered the speed of replication or disabled it altogether. Copying-fidelity became a priority later on when life became more complex. Even today I think you'll find that bacteria have less sophisticated DNA repair than eukaryotes. Probably because they don't need it as much as we do.

Good questions nonetheless, although you may want to clarify #2

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

ABE: I found a source for the experiment I was thinking of. You can find it here: Evolution
The experiment deals with the evolution of the Qp virus. As I mentioned in the thread it was able to reduce its genome down to only 220 nucleotides (Really really tiny). Further, it evolved the ability to attract organic molecules for replication without requiring the enzymes provided by the lab

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:00 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:48 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 25 of 191 (533140)
10-29-2009 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 1:07 AM


Re: Randomness
Hi Buzsaw,

You're welcome There are few things I dislike more than rude one-liners in a debate. Especially if they are irrelevant to the question at hand.

Buzsaw writes:

Your statement above appears to imply that the process is not actually random (ABE: relative to the matter at hand). Is that correct?

The reason why you have to be careful when using the word "random" when discussing the mechanics of evolution is two-fold. First off, many of the classic creationist descriptions of evolution lampoon its alleged randomness. You might be familiar with the tornado in the junkyard that randomly builds a functioning jumbo jet as an analogy for evolution. This is a common misunderstanding, as evolution does not predict that complex life-forms will come together randomly. A lot of people get tired of hearing these misrepresentations and will become annoyed if they think that's the point you're trying to make.

Secondly, evolution isn't really an random process. There are two parts to evolution. One is mutation, and mutation is very random. The second is natural selection. Natural selection is not random in that it can always be predicted to bolster the survival of the genes that best help support their reproduction.

As such, the adaptation of life to adverse (within limit) conditions, and indeed, to new opportunities, is inevitable. To say that the eye formed by chance is not consistent with evolution by natural selection. We expect life-forms to develop light-sensitive organs on planets where this is useful.

Granted, it is always impossible to give the details of exactly how life will adapt to a problem. An observer at the time of the first replicators would not have been able to predict the evolution of humans. There were many other paths life could have taken. So on a certain level evolution is unpredictable and random, but only insofar as we do not know "how" life will adapt. We know that it will.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:07 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 191 (533141)
10-29-2009 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 1:25 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Meldinoor writes:

Not really. The first self-replicating molecules could well be considered life already, so abiogenesis has already occurred at this point.

Mmm, but Bluejay's process, to which I meant to allude to included a stage of non-living chemicals compounding into something living. I failed to clarify that in my message.

Meldinoor writes:

On the other hand, scientific observations have shown how very basic life is able to thrive and evolve. I don't have the source handy right now, but I read about an experiment where a virus was put in a beaker with a solute that provided all the necessary amino acids for it to replicate. As it evolved inside the beaker, with no need to find cells to infect, and no need to defend itself from threats, it gradually began to lose these traits in favor of a genome that replicated faster. Eventually, after many generations (and several beakers) the viruses were essentially reduced to a replicating molecule, with little function besides that of speedy replication.

Again, my problem applies to a non-life to life model, i.e. origin of life, as per Bluejay's message.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 1:25 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 2:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 27 of 191 (533144)
10-29-2009 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 1:48 AM


Re: Is There A Model?
Buzsaw writes:

Again, my problem applies to a non-life to life model, i.e. origin of life, as per Bluejay's message.

The problem with wanting a discrete definition of life vs non-life is that it can get very blurry at the level we're talking about. My definition of life would include replicating molecules, as life would then descend from those molecules without any change to the mechanism of the process (evolution by natural selection).

Some definitions of life don't even include viruses! (Probably because they don't really fit into our system of taxonomy) Yet viruses are more complex than the simple replicating molecules that would have been the precursors of life. (Although this link shows how simple life can get while still being functional: Evolution : Also have a look at my ABE upthread)

Once you get down to such a low level of complexity, it really isn't that difficult to provide valid hypotheses for the formation of self-replicating molecules. We still can't know for certain what the first self-replicators looked like, but the possibility of their being really simple little things makes their spontaneous appearance rather more probable.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 1:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 140 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 28 of 191 (533147)
10-29-2009 2:56 AM


Bluejay:
I would argue that there is a difference between "not living" and "dead." To be "dead," something has to have previously been "alive."

Whether or not something was previously alive is beside the point, evolutionists/abiogenesists claim that life began when all the parts essential for life where in place, that is why we have such experiments as the Miller–Urey experiment that aspired to produce the requirements for life with the idea that having all the required parts in place is all that's necessary for life to begin. Thus my connection of death to abiogenesis is relevant seeing that organisms dead or alive have all the required essentials for life, even a bacterium (simple cell)despite having all the essential requirements for it to live, does die. The conclusion is obvious having all the requirements in place is not all that is needed for life.

"Bluejay:
So, just having all the parts in one place doesn't mean something should be able to come to life. "

That is my contention, thus abiogenesis is stuck with a problem.

Bluejay:
You could pile all the parts of a car into one place, and still not have a functioning automobile if the brake pedal isn't attached to the brake pad, or the fuel tank isn't attached to the fuel injector.

Exactly, as a consequence abiogenesis has got a problem.

But, abiogeneticists don't think the earliest lifeforms had all of these complex, interacting parts that required such precision: they were just amalgams of associated chemicals that gradually grew in complexity until the result could be considered "alive" by our definition.

The complexity of an doesn't matter as I showed above a dead bacterium still has all its parts in place needed for life yet it isn't alive. And dead animals have all the required parts in place yet are not alive, this is a problem whether you see it or not.

Bluejay:
Humans and mice, however, cannot sustain ourselves indefinitely, even if we have ready access to all necessary resources.

NosyNed:
But complex organisms aren't what "abiogenesised" are they? So the issue of death of those organisms isn't relevant either.

It is actually relevant, if life is not just a function of its parts then something else is at work,

NosyNed:
As noted it is clearly not at all impossible to maintain life indefinitely since the bacteria like forms did it continuously for 3 billion years after abiogenesis.[/qs]

It's just your opinion that bacteria life forms maintained their life continuously for 3 billion years after abiogenesis. How can you prove that?

You don't, I am pretty sure, understand what an emergent property is.

I have no reason for woo-woo because, so far, all we see is complex chemistry and nothing is unexplainable so far.

If life is reducible to the subatomic level and if all life is merely a complex form or arrangement at the subatomic level than what can possibly cause them to die; dead organisms have all the requirements of life at the subatomic level they have the necessary arrangement as well, yet dead organisms are not alive, this means that life is more than the sum of its parts.

A newly dead body may appear to have everything necessary to sustain life,

It doesn't just appear so it is so.

Complex bodies like the human body require a number of systems to operate. Just like a car, a body can cease to function if it runs out of fuel, develops serious faults, parts wear out, or if it suffers a serious accident.

A car may work again when its broken parts are fixed, but a dead organism will remain dead, even after the cause of death has been taken care of.

Phage0070:
Evolution claims nothing about abiogenesis, Cedre should know this by now.

That is why I was careful not to say evolution instead I said evolutionists, because evolutionists do sometimes claim this.

Phage0070:
Abiogenesis does not claim that putting all the ingredients of say, a squirrel, into a jar and shaking it long enough will yield a squirrel.

Dead organisms, especially newly dead ones have all the essential parts in place right down to the subatomic level, yet they are not alive.

Meldinoor
You're jumping to conclusions here. Before we continue this discussion, I'd like you to define "life".

The period during which something is functional (as between birth and death).

Why is this certain? We know enough about what makes people tick today, that we can almost always tell why somebody has died. And so far it has never been "because his spirit left the body"

You do not know why this happens even though all the parts are in place, abiogenesis talks about life working as a result of having all the parts in place, death should't occur especially naturally. About the spirit living the body it's understood that the spirit lives the body no prior to death but following death.


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 3:20 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 4:13 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 10-29-2009 11:51 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 29 of 191 (533148)
10-29-2009 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cedre
10-29-2009 2:56 AM


Hi Cedre,

Cedre writes:

even a bacterium (simple cell)despite having all the essential requirements for it to live, does die

Yes. But how does it die? Many bacteria will survive until they replicate, their "halfs" will then go on and continue to replicate and produce more bacteria. The bacteria doesn't "die of age" but essentially lives on in its offspring. As such, each bacterium has the potential to live forever.

When a bacteria does die it is usually because of predation, adverse environment etc. that kills it by bursting it or disabling it in some way or another.

Cedre writes:

The conclusion is obvious having all the requirements in place is not all that is needed for life.

Quite true. But once you have all the parts connected correctly to each other you have life. That's like a heap of metal and plastic doesn't make a car. But if I put the metal together such that it formed an engine, chassi etc I would have a fully functioning car. Once the parts are all in place, I don't need to breathe a soul into the car to make it work. It's the same with life. All you need are the parts correctly assembled and it will work.

When an animal dies it is usually because some trauma disrupts the "life-support systems" in its body. A lion breaking the neck of a gazelle will paralyze it by severing its spinal cord, and the cells of the animal will die from lack of oxygen and vital nutrients as the animal bleeds to death. As you can see, when the cells aren't getting any blood they no longer have all the ingredients required for them to sustain life, and they die.

Complex animals, like humans, have bodies that are highly dependent on specific circumstances in order to survive. Oxygen, for example, is not necessary for life to exist, but for humans it is vital to our survival. Just like maintaining a heart beat is vital to our survival. When a human dies it is not because the ingredients for life are gone, it's because the circumstances necessary for the human organism to survive have ceased to be.

Furthermore, once a human has been dead for some time you can't restore him back to life for the simple reason that dead tissue breaks down pretty much right away. Even before it is noticeable to the eye, cells will already have reached a point of decay where they won't be able to start up again. This is because human cells are very complex constructs that require more than just the ingredients for life. They require that all the parts are in the right order and properly connected.

In light of this, I'm curious, what aspect of life do you think requires a soul to be explained?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 2:56 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 3:48 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 140 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 30 of 191 (533150)
10-29-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 3:20 AM


Quite true. But once you have all the parts connected correctly to each other you have life.

No what you have is a lifeless organism a body not life.

That's like a heap of metal and plastic doesn't make a car.

You have car not a working one, life is akin to the working car, in Christian theology the body is but one requirement of life, the spirit and soul are also required for life on earth.

Bacteria may exist for very long amounts of time but eventually bacteria populations do die.

It's the same with life. All you need are the parts correctly assembled and it will work.

but dead organisms defy that notion. And although deterioration may begin shortly after death it doesn't happen extremely fast as you claim otherwise resuscitation would always fail. I have read of a man who had been dead for three days but was able to be resuscitated. Also according to Wikipedia it actually takes a long time for tissue to deteriorate "The process of tissue breakdown may take from several days up to years" http://en.wikipedia.org/...Decomposition#Human_decomposition

When a human dies it is not because the ingredients for life are gone, it's because the circumstances necessary for the human organism to survive have ceased to be.

Exactly All that's needed are not just parts correctly assembled but my point is other factors are come into play, dead organism especially freshly dead organisms also have parts correctly assembled, humans still have a heart and arteries and etc everything is still in place. My point is so clear parts are not all that is required therefore abiogenesis that relies on parts for life to exist cannot be wholly true.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 3:20 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 4:08 PM Cedre has responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018