Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis

Actually you didn't show that. You are making the claim based on a superficial, and if I may say, erroneous, definition of "components". As Rahvin and others have pointed out, the electrochemical nature of the body's control systems renders incorrect your intuitive sense that everything necessary for life is still present in a dead body. Death typically occurs because of the loss of energy to the brain. This energy is not unreal, or mysterious, or magical. It is real, measurable, "stuff".The fact that you can't see it, perhaps don't know about it, and clearly are not including it in your intuitive inventory of what is and is not present in a newly dead body, does not lend support to your assertions.The newly dead brain is not chemically the same as a living brain, and has not been chemically intact for some period of time before we would recognize death as having occurred. You are hoist on your own metaphorical petard here. If the battery in that car had lost its electrochemical charge, the car would be immobilized. To the casual observer (the status, sadly, which describes your understanding of death in the physiologic sense.) it would appear that all the components necessary for mechanical life were present - even if one were astute enough to do a visual inspection of the fluid level in the battery. But the car, nonetheless, would be dead. Not because it had lost its "spirit", but because a set of ions, unmeasurable without the appropriate technology, were no longer in their appropriate location.With time, the metal parts would rust, the electronics corrode, the plastic become brittle. To even the casual observer it would then be clear that the car was dead. But the not-so-apparent cause of death would still have been real and physical. That it was based in a level of chemical interaction not visible to the eye, or accessible to the untrained mind, does not for a moment render it other than physical. Only if the function of the brain is being performed by something else. This fails to address or support your claims, and seems, in fact, to undermine them.Capt.

It is not clear to me why the intact state of "most" of the body's cells after death is of any relevance to your argument. Depending on how one is defining death, it would be entirely consistent for most of the body's cells to still be alive for some period of time after death had been declared.Perhaps it would be more helpful to your understanding of this subject if you addressed the question of why death occurs in an organism. Let us assume that I take a human being and close off their carotid arteries, thus depriving the brain of its blood supply. The person will die. Why? At a time following my intervention but just preceding their death, what is the physical state of their body (specifically the brain). Is it the same as the physical state that existed in the normally metabolizing brain before the vessels were occluded? Why do the things that make us die make us die?Capt.