Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 119 of 191 (533353)
10-30-2009 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Huntard
10-30-2009 9:48 AM


I'm sorry, firstly the person is alive and is placed on life support if he/she were dead he/she would have been placed in a morgue somewhere. Secondly its the legal definition the individual still has bodily function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Huntard, posted 10-30-2009 9:48 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by caffeine, posted 10-30-2009 12:36 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 133 of 191 (533458)
10-31-2009 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Blue Jay
10-30-2009 10:57 AM


Re: At the moment of death
But the "carbon compounds" are not still in the right positions!
I have given you evidence that they are, I have provided several links which maintain that tissue breakdown happens in stages and this stages happen over hours. And if tissue hasn't began to breakdown it means that the cells and their components that comprise the tissue haven't either thus the carbon compounds comprising the cells and their components are in position, the only time they are not in position must be when the tissue begins to breakdown.
First of all let's look at what happens to the human body at the time of
death and soon after. At the very moment of death the heart stops
beating and the lungs stop breathing. This means that the cells in the
body will no longer receive blood and oxygen. Since the blood is no
longer being pumped through the body it will drain from the blood vessels
at the top of the body and collect in the blood vessels on the lower part
of the body. The upper part of the body will become pale and the lower
part of the body will become dark. If the person is lying on their back,
the front of their body and face will be very pale or even grey while
their back will be much darker and look almost like it is bruised. This
is called lividity or liver mortis and is one of the first things that a
scientist will look at to try to determine when someone died and if they
were moved after death.
At this point most of the cells in the body are still not dead.
http://www.madsci.org/...chives/2005-04/1114460899.Gb.r.html
According to the above link These cells survive because they use a different type of respiration than when the heart and lungs were working. While the person was alive the cells used aerobic respiration (with oxygen), but after death the cells continue to survive using what is called anaerobic respiration (without oxygen).
Therefore you claim that the carbon-compounds required for life are not in place after death is unfounded.
You will never, ever find a situation in which a perfectly-functioning body just dies for absolutely no reason.
My argument is not about functionality its about the fact that despite having all the required parts for life organisms can die. Meaning that carbon-compounds are not the only ingredients needed for life.
This idea that, at the moment of death, all the parts are in the right place is completely and unbelievably false. I wish creationists would stop trying to bring it up
Firstly I didn't borrow these from any creationist. Secondly your idea that parts are not in the right place is false as I showed above.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Blue Jay, posted 10-30-2009 10:57 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Blue Jay, posted 10-31-2009 5:23 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 134 of 191 (533459)
10-31-2009 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-30-2009 10:48 AM


Re: MISSING A POINT
Why do you have to go all the way back to abiogenesis? And exactly where do you draw the line indicating the end of abiogenesis?
I do not believe in abiogenesis, exisiting scientific knowledge doesn't prompt me to accept that life can come about spontaneously, but I also reject the idea due to the fact that death poses a challenge to abiogenesis in that it demonstrates that parts are not all that is required for life to begin, a life-force seems needed. Because of this I cannot hypothecate anything about the end of abiogeneis as I do not even believe it does happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-30-2009 10:48 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-31-2009 8:19 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 149 by SammyJean, posted 10-31-2009 12:03 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 135 of 191 (533460)
10-31-2009 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
10-30-2009 11:10 AM


Re: Relevant to the Origin of Life
As noted a number of times, Cedre, the life or death of a large, multicellular organism has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of simpler-than-we-have-now single celled (or not even with cells as we know) living things.
I already addressed simple life forms in my response to Meldinoor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2009 11:10 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 136 of 191 (533461)
10-31-2009 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Coragyps
10-30-2009 11:41 AM


Re: Relevant to the Origin of Life
And tell us if bacteria have "spirits."
Bacteria are part of the animal kingdom are they not. Thus they do have a life-giving force and that is exactly what the spirit is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Coragyps, posted 10-30-2009 11:41 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2009 4:33 AM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 137 of 191 (533462)
10-31-2009 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-30-2009 11:51 AM


Re: ANOTHER ANALOGY
If that stalactite falls from the roof of a cave and smashes into the ground, breaking into many pieces, even though all the same parts that formed the stalactite are still present, they will not immediately reform to make the stalactite.
This is a straw man my argument is that dead organisms have all the necessary components required for life in tact for a certain period after death before tissue breakdown kicks in. Humans for example have the necessary components for life and more than that these components are arranged in the right positions, otherwise resuscitations wouldn't be possible. The fact that organisms can die despite having all the requirements for life is clear proof that having parts and having them in the right places is not all that's required.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-30-2009 11:51 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2009 8:54 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2009 5:17 PM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 139 of 191 (533466)
10-31-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Huntard
10-31-2009 4:33 AM


Re: Relevant to the Origin of Life
oh yeah that's right, my bad, they belong to the kingdom Monera, oh boy that'l teach me not to respond to quickly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2009 4:33 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2009 9:14 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 148 by Theodoric, posted 10-31-2009 9:50 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 141 of 191 (533482)
10-31-2009 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-31-2009 8:19 AM


Re: MISSING A POINT
As I have already explained, the "parts" that would have been present at the start of abiogenesis are completely different to the "parts" that make up a living or recently deceased body.
They were still parts.
The "parts" that would have been present for the process of abiogenesis to begin would have been chemical elements or compounds that began a process of reactions. They would not have in any way resembled the "parts" of a living or deceased body.
Are you suggesting that these chemical reactions characterized the earliest life form or are you suggesting that they preceeded the earliest life form? If the former biologically a bisque of chemicals undergoing a series of reactions does not qualify as life, you need to display some characteristics of living things in order to be said to be alive, I take it for granted that you know what these characteristics are. So the first living organism was beyond the stage of being just chemical reactions as you're suggesting but possessed parts as simple as they might have been so as to perform at least some of the things that the living things today perform. If the latter then these chemical reactions were only responsible for making the parts necessary for life but then like I showed having parts isn't all that needed.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-31-2009 8:19 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2009 8:55 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 144 of 191 (533487)
10-31-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Drosophilla
10-30-2009 7:36 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
But it IS puerile junk! The driver is utterly irrelevant to the analogy/argument...I’ll return to that shortly.
In the meantime I will object and say that a driver is necessary, a car with all the necessary parts doesn't automatically have speed it needs to move first, and until then it's but a "speedless" collection of parts.
But I have only brought up the above to show you that your assertion isn't even correct. However, on a more fundamental basis, your assertion about a driver is utterly irrelevant to the issue - which is that correct organisation of matter will cause an emergent property
Again your wrong as I show above.
You can put a driver in a pile of oil, metal lumps, petrol and rubber/plastic, and no matter how much that driver tries he can't make that heap of matter move and have 'speed' - the emergent property cannot exist until the structure is in it's required form.
Your misrepresentation of my argument is so clear. I'm not arguing against the fact that all the parts necessary for life need to be in place for life to be, my argument is although these parts are necessary for life they are not single-handedly responsible for life, they make up but one piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
You remind me of an 8 year old boy who once said to me that modern man is not a 'meat-eater' because we (as in the majority of us) don't go out and chase and club animals to death prior to eating them (he'd seen a film on the assumed habits of our early ancestors). Amused, I asked him why we modern people don't count as meat-eating animals anymore and he said "Because we have butchers to cut up our meat now".Do you see the irrelevance?
No your analogy makes no sense to me I don't even think it ties to what we are discussing.
And that is exactly what you have done with this insistence of a driver.
Nonsense you're just trying to duck the need for a driver, but a car does need a driver to start it up and get it on the road before speed appears and to assume that a motionless car has speed is rubbish, it sure does have the potential to have speed but that potential won't be realized until the car is driven.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Drosophilla, posted 10-30-2009 7:36 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2009 8:58 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 150 by Vacate, posted 10-31-2009 1:10 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 157 by Drosophilla, posted 10-31-2009 7:06 PM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 146 of 191 (533489)
10-31-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Huntard
10-31-2009 8:58 AM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
0 speed equals 0 life in our case. 0 speed doesn't work. Speed=distance/time, the car needs to travel a distance first.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Huntard, posted 10-31-2009 8:58 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 166 of 191 (533662)
11-02-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Drosophilla
10-31-2009 7:06 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
rosophilla writes:
So, your car is parked at the top of a hill. Handbrake left off but the car is on the level on the top and is not moving. A sudden earth-tremor judders the car - it rolls slightly forward onto the slope and sets off merrily down the hill....voila - speed and no driver.
Ostensibly this excludes the need for a driver, but what if we replaced the car with a plane, a plane would need a pilot to lift it off the ground. Also with the car analogy I could be tempted to say, well all you have done is replace the driver with the tremor and the hill; at heart you still need something to set the car forth into motion (the tremor) and to keep it in motion (the hill) so at close range the car still needs a little push, and a hill to keep it in motion. Imagine that a tremor or any other disturbance never occurs to thrust the car downslope the car would still have all its parts in place and yet never move.
So again parts are not all that's needed for life to begin, a life force is needed, in your revised analogy the life force would be the tremor and the hill, expunge the tremor and the hill and you're stuck with a motionless car that has every part required for it to move.
Also in your analogy the car really isn't doing the moving at all, the engine isn't turned on, basically nothing is running inside the car, it's like someone attaching strings to a corpse and moving it around in a way that mimics life, and since movement is a characteristic of life the corpse appears to be alive and then you proclaim: It's alive! Yet in reality the corpse isn't alive it only has the appearance of life, nothing in the corpse is functional and the same thing applies to your car nothing in it is running, you might as well replace it with a ball or a human being, in fact almost anything has the ability to roll, tumble, slide or whatever down a hill/slope therefore in this case the the speed related to the movement is not an emergent property of how the car parts are assembled seeing that the car would even be able to go down the hill on its head and practically anything can go down a hill.
Therefore considering all the things I mention in this post your analogy has failed you yet again.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Drosophilla, posted 10-31-2009 7:06 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-02-2009 12:54 PM Cedre has replied
 Message 170 by Drosophilla, posted 11-02-2009 2:54 PM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


(1)
Message 167 of 191 (533664)
11-02-2009 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rrhain
10-31-2009 5:17 PM


my argument is that dead organisms have all the necessary components required for life in tact for a certain period after death before tissue breakdown kicks in.
-->
That clearly isn't true or the organism would still be alive.
You can't merely say that it isn't true and expect us to believe you, dish out evidence that clearly show that the carbon compounds needed for life are not in tact for a period after death. Note you should deny my claims in view of the links I provided, and those links clearly show that most of the bodies cells at least in humans are intact for a period following death. Deal with the links it seems no one here is willing to deal with the links that clearly show that most cells are in intact for a certain period after death.
For example, animal life requires oxygen. If you remove the oxygen, the organism dies. Therefore, the dead organism does not "have all the necessary components required for life."
Note my argument is about to carbon-compounds, so your objection here is unwarranted and without merit.
The entropy of an organism that just died is the same as the entropy of it one second ago when it was still alive. Do you even know what entropy is? Hint: If your definition includes the words "order," "disorder," or "information," then you haven't got it.
I would define it as the measure of the randomness or disorder of a system but as you have said above you do not adhere to this definition. Maybe you can provide me with your definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2009 5:17 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Modulous, posted 11-02-2009 7:39 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 184 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-03-2009 11:51 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 172 of 191 (533802)
11-03-2009 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Drosophilla
11-02-2009 2:54 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
that the arrangement of the said items cause emergent properties to arise: The pile of metal, oil, fuel, cloth, plastic etc etc will not roll down a hill when there is a tremor because it's (lack) of structural arrangement is not conducive to do so.
At this point your desperation to make your analogy work in your favor is evident. To counter your first analogy I showed that a car with all its parts intact wouldn't move unless a driver started its engine and got it moving. I showed that your second analogy doesn't work either because almost any object can go down a slope/hill and even if you had a complete car on a hill it won't ever move to display speed unless a tremor got it moving and without the hill the car won't be able to sustain its motion.
You are 'pissing in the wind' with your insistence to need to reference irrelevancies. You keep doing this over and over, not understanding (despite being told by more than just myself) that your assertions are utterly irrelevant, and your 'god life force' is a fanciful figment of your imagination.
Exactly I'm being told all of the above continually but no one bothers to provide clear evidence demonstrating that I'm in the wrong, where I have provided links everyone else for the most part has only provided their opinion and the best you could do yourself was to cook up an analogy that ended up working against you. And what I've noticed about your posts is that they strongly consist of slurs and insults as opposed to good arguments.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Drosophilla, posted 11-02-2009 2:54 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Meldinoor, posted 11-03-2009 2:47 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 176 by Drosophilla, posted 11-03-2009 3:01 AM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 173 of 191 (533803)
11-03-2009 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Drosophilla
11-02-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
I am torn between believing that he genuinely hasn't advanced to Piaget's highest level 4 abstract reasoning level
Well your beliefs are your own you're entitled to them, and they do not really affect me because I do not think they are grounded in truth.
Alternatively he could have already realised that by admitting emergent properties do exist, and then this would smash his "life force" theory to pieces,
Why should I be obliged to admit something that you have a hard time proving via you're analogy.
Summary: We are wasting our time....
Accurate summary: Your views are being challenged and you do not fancy that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Drosophilla, posted 11-02-2009 3:09 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 174 of 191 (533805)
11-03-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
11-02-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Let's stick with the car analogy to see where the "life-force" comes from. Consider a set of jump-leads attached between 2 cars. Car A is already running, and you use the leads from that car to get Car B running.
It is completely irrelevant how the first life-form came into existence when you are considering why the life-force that someone derived from their mother comes to an end.
It is not irrelevant seeing that car A itself had to be started by a driver, so there's no way of escaping the need for a driver or a "life-force"
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-02-2009 12:54 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-03-2009 4:45 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 11-10-2009 1:55 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024