Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2018 9:21 AM
338 online now:
creation, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Stile (6 members, 332 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,482 Year: 15,305/29,783 Month: 1,249/1,502 Week: 6/241 Day: 6/36 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Modulous
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 31 of 191 (533151)
10-29-2009 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cedre
10-29-2009 2:56 AM


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

Biochemists have long agreed that life doesn't spring from chemicals in one single short step. Our understanding of such things seems to indicate that a fairly lengthy process is required. You might have all the ingredients for cake - but you need to mix them right and then heat them in an oven.

The problem is that in our current environment everytime the cake mix is put in the oven, some kids come along and eat the cake mix so we are unlikely to get cake. That is to say: when we put the chemicals together, they are consumed by bacteria and fungi etc.

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.

No. If it had all the parts in place needed for life, it would be alive. The fact that it is dead shows that all the parts are not in place. Can you find a contra-example to support your position?

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.

Dead people are brought back to life on a fairly regular basis by removing the cause of death.
The problem comes if they have been dead for a certain amount of time: Then decay would have kicked in and we currently have no way of taking care of this damage. Even if we cure what killed them - there is still something ensuring they are dead.


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 32 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 4:24 AM Modulous has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 32 of 191 (533153)
10-29-2009 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
10-29-2009 4:13 AM


iochemists have long agreed that life doesn't spring from chemicals in one single short step. Our understanding of such things seems to indicate that a fairly lengthy process is required. You might have all the ingredients for cake - but you need to mix them right and then heat them in an oven.

The problem is that in our current environment everytime the cake mix is put in the oven, some kids come along and eat the cake mix so we are unlikely to get cake. That is to say: when we put the chemicals together, they are consumed by bacteria and fungi etc.

This is a straw man argument, I'm talking about organism that have all the required parts in tact, and freshly dead organism have all the requirements in tact yet are not alive.

Dead people are brought back to life on a fairly regular basis by removing the cause of death.

Regularly does not mean all the time, and sometimes people who haven't been dead for too long can also not be resuscitated, take Michael Jackson he had a doctor on hand, but was unable to be brought back to life, does it mean he didn't have all the required parts for life in tact? Of course he did. And I'm sure there are many more such cases all the time.

The fact that it is dead shows that all the parts are not in place. Can you find a contra-example to support your position?

This is your claim you should back it up.

Even if we cure what killed them - there is still something ensuring they are dead.

And that is the spirit. Without it the body despite having all its parts in place won't be animate.

Then decay would have kicked in and we currently have no way of taking care of this damage.

As I showed in my last post decay doesn't happen fast.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 4:13 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 4:39 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 35 by hooah212002, posted 10-29-2009 4:53 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 5:18 AM Cedre has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1568 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 33 of 191 (533155)
10-29-2009 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Cedre
10-29-2009 4:24 AM


This is a straw man argument

I'm glad you think so as that's exactly what I thought when I saw your argument. Are you really trying to argue against abiogenesis (the idea that non-living chemicals came together to form self-replicating proto-cells, that could be regarded as the first life) on the basis of the nature of death of humans and other massive-scale massively-multicellular organisms? Is this in any way relevant? Even bacteria and other unicellular organisms are mindblowingly complex compared to these hypothetical proto-cells, but would be a billion times more suitable for discussion. I suggest that you restrict your discussion there if you want to be taken seriously...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 4:24 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 4:50 AM cavediver has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 34 of 191 (533157)
10-29-2009 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
10-29-2009 4:39 AM


Is this in any way relevant? Even bacteria are mindblowingly complex compared to these hypothetical proto-cells, but would be a billion times more suitable for discussion. I suggest that you restrict your discussion there if you want to be taken seriously...

Yes it is relevant, even the first life form be it the protobiont whatever it was is hypothesized to have had parts as few as they were. The trend is from the known simplest lifeforms to the most complex all of them can and do die regularly with their parts intact, meaning that something else aside from parts is required, and to say that the earliest life form only required parts to be alive, if it existed, would be going against this universal trend that despite having parts all organism do die, showing that parts are not all that is needed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 4:39 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 5:42 AM Cedre has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 35 of 191 (533158)
10-29-2009 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Cedre
10-29-2009 4:24 AM


As I showed in my last post decay doesn't happen fast.

The entire process may take some time, but it begins immediately, as soon as the brain ceases to function.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 4:24 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:01 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 36 of 191 (533159)
10-29-2009 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by hooah212002
10-29-2009 4:53 AM


The entire process may take some time, but it begins immediately, as soon as the brain ceases to function.

But it isn't so drastic in the short term otherwise resuscitations would be impossible, and tissue damage wouldn't also take years it would take a few weeks in that case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by hooah212002, posted 10-29-2009 4:53 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 37 of 191 (533164)
10-29-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Cedre
10-29-2009 4:24 AM


Regularly does not mean all the time, and sometimes people who haven't been dead for too long can also not be resuscitated, take Michael Jackson he had a doctor on hand, but was unable to be brought back to life, does it mean he didn't have all the required parts for life in tact? Of course he did. And I'm sure there are many more such cases all the time.

I've never said that people can be brought back everytime. This is because for whatever reason it is not possible to remove the cause of death, or restore the body back to a functional condition.

Michael Jackson did not have all the requried parts for life in tact. That's why he died.

The fact that it is dead shows that all the parts are not in place. Can you find a contra-example to support your position?

This is your claim you should back it up.

It is your claim that a dead person is functionally equivalent to a living person in every single way. I don't see why this has to be so. It might be, but I've heard of no case where this is true. You claimed that it was so, I'm asking for you to back this up. If you aren't able to, I see no reason to believe your claim that 'something else' is require for life.

Even if we cure what killed them - there is still something ensuring they are dead.

And that is the spirit. Without it the body despite having all its parts in place won't be animate.

Nice quote mine. The thing that is ensuring they are dead is decay, as I subsequently explained.

Then decay would have kicked in and we currently have no way of taking care of this damage.

As I showed in my last post decay doesn't happen fast.

Really? So the brain cells of a person deprived of oxygen for ten minutes are identical to the brain cells of a healthy living person and an autopsy would be unable to determine that deprivation of oxygen had occurred? No difference in pH levels? No difference in Calcium distributiion?

You should probably publish your results since forensic pathology has been getting things very wrong - people have gone to prison on the back of this kind of grotesque error. Justice must be served - stop debating on this pesky and pointless debate board - you clearly have a greater calling.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 4:24 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:28 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 9:48 AM Modulous has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 38 of 191 (533165)
10-29-2009 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
10-29-2009 5:18 AM


Michael Jackson did not have all the requried parts for life in tact. That's why he died.

Can you prove this dear Modulous.

You claimed that it was so, I'm asking for you to back this up. If you aren't able to, I see no reason to believe your claim that 'something else' is require for life.

There is nothing missing in a dead person that is found inside a living person, are you suggesting that the heart magically vanishes or some other parts magically vanish from the body of a dead person, the only way for parts to fade from a corpse is through decay and like the Wikipedia article said decay can take a few days even years. And early decay clearly is not extreme that is why people can be returned to life as you yourself said in one of your earlier posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 5:18 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 6:09 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 47 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-29-2009 10:22 AM Cedre has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1568 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 39 of 191 (533167)
10-29-2009 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cedre
10-29-2009 4:50 AM


The trend is from the known simplest lifeforms to the most complex all of them can and do die regularly with their parts intact, meaning that something else aside from parts is required, and to say that the earliest life form only required parts to be alive, if it existed, would be going against this universal trend that despite having parts all organism do die, showing that parts are not all that is needed.

can you spell circular, children?

What makes a bacteria die, despite having all the correct "parts"? Can you show that they do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 4:50 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:47 AM cavediver has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 40 of 191 (533168)
10-29-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
10-29-2009 5:42 AM


What makes a bacteria die, despite having all the correct "parts"? Can you show that they do?

Can you show me bacteria that's been around from the beginning, if they don't die we should have bacteria that are millions of years old according evolutionary timescales.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 5:42 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 10-29-2009 6:08 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 7:23 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1504
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 41 of 191 (533170)
10-29-2009 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Cedre
10-29-2009 5:47 AM


Can you show me bacteria that's been around from the beginning, if they don't die we should have bacteria that are millions of years old according evolutionary timescales.

As long as conditions are right, bacteria will grow and then divide once they reach a certain size. Once one bacteria has divided into two, are these two new bacteria; or are both or one the same as the original bacteria? If the latter, then every bacteria, and every other living cell, is thousands of millions of years old. All living cells arose from division of a previous living cell, and so each traces a continual existence since the earliest beginnings of life without ever dying.

When conditions aren't right for cell growth and division, one of two things can happen. If something in the environment irreperably damages the cell, then it will die - as its parts are no longer connected in the correct way for life to be maintained. In the right conditions though, growth will stop but the cell will not die, and will happily go back to growing and reproducing once conditions are right again - even if this is millions of years later.

It's not a bacteria, but here's an example of an even more complex organism, eukaryotic yeast cells, which were revived after 45 million years and then used to make beer! These cells had been lying dormant for a long time, but because nothing irreparably disrupted the organisation of the cell, they can still get on with things when conditions are right.

The same research team* has gotten even more impressive results with dormant bacteria, claiming to have revived strains which have lain dormant for up to 250 million years.

There really are bacteria millions of years old, whichever way you look at it.

*ABE - sorry, I misread. It wasn't the same research team, it was another from West Chester University.

Edited by caffeine, : typo

Edited by caffeine, : ABE footnote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:47 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 191 (533171)
10-29-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cedre
10-29-2009 5:28 AM


Can you prove this dear Modulous.

The coronor's report provides the information. I haven't read it, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't read: This body is perfectly healthy and functional. I'd imagine it would mention something about the presence of propofol, about oxygen starvation etc.

There is nothing missing in a dead person that is found inside a living person, are you suggesting that the heart magically vanishes or some other parts magically vanish from the body of a dead person, the only way for parts to fade from a corpse is through decay and like the Wikipedia article said decay can take a few days even years.

While there is nothing 'missing', the parts are not arranged in the same way. Agreed? The brain hasn't vanished - but the cells are no longer the same as a living brain - even after a mere few minutes. Agreed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:28 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 6:26 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 11:57 AM Modulous has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 43 of 191 (533172)
10-29-2009 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
10-29-2009 6:09 AM


The coronor's report provides the information. I haven't read it, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't read: This body is perfectly healthy and functional. I'd imagine it would mention something about the presence of propofol, about oxygen starvation etc.

A report I watched on CNN actually said that Michael Jackson was apparently a healthy human being at the time of his death.

While there is nothing 'missing', the parts are not arranged in the same way. Agreed? The brain hasn't vanished - but the cells are no longer the same as a living brain - even after a mere few minutes. Agreed?

I would disagree that the parts are not arranged in the same way, I would say that they are for the most part, deterioration happens relatively slowly and that's why resuscitation is possible in some cases. for example a man was brought back to life after 30 minutes according to this link http://www.thaindian.com/...mes-back-to-life-half-an-hour-af. This shows that the life-sustaining components are still in tact after 30 minutes, yet many people can not be brought back in even shorter spells of time. also according to one article "muscle cells can live for several hours and skin and bone cells can stay alive for days!" http://www.madsci.org/...chives/2005-04/1114460899.Gb.r.html.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 6:09 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 7:59 AM Cedre has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1568 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 191 (533176)
10-29-2009 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Cedre
10-29-2009 5:47 AM


Can you show me bacteria that's been around from the beginning, if they don't die we should have bacteria that are millions of years old according evolutionary timescales.

I refer you to Caffeine's excellent post for an answer.

Now, I ask again - What makes a bacteria die, despite having all the correct "parts"? Can you show that they do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:47 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 45 of 191 (533183)
10-29-2009 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Cedre
10-29-2009 6:26 AM


A report I watched on CNN actually said that Michael Jackson was apparently a healthy human being at the time of his death.

LOL - Equivocation isn't going to help you here. Being dead, as any doctor will tell you - is not 'healthy'. CNN were probably reporting that he had no specific illness immediately prior to his dying.

Do you have any evidence that his brain cells were exactly the same after his death as they were before? Or indeed - that this is the case for any person?

I would disagree that the parts are not arranged in the same way, I would say that they are for the most part, deterioration happens relatively slowly and that's why resuscitation is possible in some cases. for example a man was brought back to life after 30 minutes according to this link http://www.thaindian.com/...mes-back-to-life-half-an-hour-af. This shows that the life-sustaining components are still in tact after 30 minutes, yet many people can not be brought back in even shorter spells of time. also according to one article "muscle cells can live for several hours and skin and bone cells can stay alive for days!" http://www.madsci.org/...chives/2005-04/1114460899.Gb.r.html.

My point exactly.
So, after thirty minutes or five minutes or whatever short period of time you want to mention - are you suggesting that the brain cells of the poor person who has been starved of oxygen are exactly identical to that of a person who is still living?

It seems to me that your position is that doctors don't reverse the damage caused by whatever and that they don't simply restart bodily processes that were somehow interrupted, but instead they re-insert the 'spirit'. My position is that if you do the same procedure to the same patient just a few minutes later it won't work despite it having all the same organs because the brain cells will have already begun to break down and things such as pH balance and calcium levels will be sufficiently different so as to prevent resuscitation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 6:26 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:08 AM Modulous has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
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