Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,227 Year: 3,484/9,624 Month: 355/974 Week: 244/130 Day: 38/43 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 1 of 191 (533024)
10-28-2009 9:20 AM


This is a question not an argument, however it may develop into one later on, for now though I would just like to pose it as a question. Evolutionist claim that life arose from dead matter once the required elements were all in place. But doesn't the fact that organisms cease to exist show that these view cannot be right, dead organism have all the required elements of life, that is proteins and all the carbon-compounds essential for life, yet they are dead. Why? At least what can be derived from this is that carbon-compounds are not all that is required for life, perhaps some kind of life-sustaining force is also required, I will propose that this life-sustaining force is God, you are at liberty to propose your own, what is certain is nothing natural is known to cause life or to add years to it. When it's time to die it's time to die.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2009 9:49 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 10-28-2009 10:21 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 10-28-2009 10:44 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 11 by Dman, posted 10-28-2009 11:55 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 12 by Meldinoor, posted 10-28-2009 1:00 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2009 4:37 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 190 by Asking, posted 05-28-2010 1:12 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 5 of 191 (533041)
10-28-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
10-28-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Death?
For the first 3 billion years organisms didn't die unless they were killed. When does a bacteria die? When it divides into two?
Bacteria do die at some point, everything is subject to the second law of energy. Due to predation or limited food supply disease etc. But the fact is when life sin't sustained it does cease.
"Life isn't an additional "force" or woo-woo"
How do you know this?
"For more complex organisms the reason for death is an interesting question."
It's more than interesting I believe it's a real challenge to abiogenesis; the fact that it's close to impossible to maintain life after a certain period with all the essential components for life in tact show that life is not just a matter of having all the components and having them in place it's more than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2009 9:49 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 10-28-2009 10:49 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2009 10:55 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 9 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-28-2009 11:11 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 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 replied
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 4:13 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 10-29-2009 11:51 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 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" Decomposition - Wikipedia
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 replied

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

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 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 replied

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

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 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 replied

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

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 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 seen this message but not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 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 replied

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

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 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 replied

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

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 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 Lazarus syndrome - Wikipedia.

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

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

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 49 of 191 (533205)
10-29-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-29-2009 10:22 AM


That is not correct. Parts can "fade" from a corpse instantly by being eaten or damaged in any number of different ways.
lol, I appreciate your enlightenment here.
Even if the body is not obviously decayed or damaged, as a layman I don't have any difficulty in understanding why a life cannot normally be resuscitated. Forgive the lack of technical terminology, but the blood "dries up" very quickly and will no longer be oxygenated. The brain suffers irreversible damage when it is deprived of oxygen. And very often, the cause of death will be the reason why the body cannot be resuscitated: for example, organs become damaged through age or disease. How would you be able to "kick-start" a life again, if the heart is seriously faulty and the brain is irreversibly damaged?
The fact that dead organisms are not alive despite being in one piece, a dead human being for example still has all the required carbon-compounds for life, and these carbon compounds are still in the right positions, yet the person is lifeless, this reveals that there's more to life than mere parts . And as I showed repeatedly the damage you allude to doesn't take place extremely fast as muscle cells can survive on for hours after death, and as for brain damage, resulting from brain cell deterioration victims of brain damage can be resuscitated and may even be nursed back to health in severe cases this person may enter a long-lived coma etc. My point is a great deal of detrimental change doesn't happen right after death, all the parts are still in place, that is why certain people have been resuscitated after even what is considered to be a very long time.
The obvious question in light of the foregoing paragraph is why do organisms die while having all the necessary parts in place if having parts is all that's required for life?
Surely you can see that the processes required to repair and kick-start a fully-formed organism that has died are totally different from the gradual series of processes that would have led from a situation where no life had ever existed to the formation of the very first simple lifeform (abiogenesis).
The very first life form arose from an assembly of life-giving components yet I have showed that having life-giving components even having them in the right places isn't all that's needed for life, there's something else.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-29-2009 10:22 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-29-2009 11:27 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 62 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 1:23 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 123 by Blue Jay, posted 10-30-2009 10:57 AM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 50 of 191 (533208)
10-29-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Modulous
10-29-2009 7:59 AM


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'.
Yes to be sure that is what happens, doctors bring the person back to life that is to say re-insert the "spirit". It just wasn't his/her time to go.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 7:59 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 11:14 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 11:45 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 52 of 191 (533212)
10-29-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Theodoric
10-29-2009 11:14 AM


Re: All we need is magic
Then why should doctors bother with medical school? For that matter why don't we just eliminated doctors all together. Prayer should be plenty sufficient for everything.
Prayer should be plenty sufficient for everything, but the success of prayer depends on faith and not many folks have that so I guess doctor's are greatly needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 11:14 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 11:46 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 10-29-2009 11:52 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 63 by Drosophilla, posted 10-29-2009 3:24 PM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 86 of 191 (533313)
10-30-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Drosophilla
10-29-2009 3:24 PM


Re: Emergent proerties.....
Now if you start it up and drive it away that car will possesses something we label as 'speed'.
I'm not exactly sure if you are likening the speed of a car with the life of an organism? If you are I must observe that you have left out a few things that is a car won't have speed unless it is driven by somebody, by the same token a body won't have life unless it is accompanied by the spirit and the soul. You can have a car with all its parts intact but until somebody gets into that car and start driving it that car will not display any speed, using this line of reasoning you can have a human body but unless it's accompanied by the soul and spirit it won't display any sign of life.
When religious people say to me 'where does your soul go when you die' to me this is analogous to saying 'where does 'speed' go to when a car breaks down?
The soul and life are not synonymous, the soul is more like who you are, your personality. Unitedly with the brain the soul determines your behavior, just like the driver determines where the car goes and how fast it travels but also the engine to a degree limits the choices of the driver and thus infringes on the overall movement of the car. Thus it would be wrong to say the brain single-handedly determines your behavior just like it would be wrong to say that the engine alone determines the behavior of the car, a driver is present that for the most part determines the behavior of the car.
There is no issue at all here to abiogenesis. It's exactly what you’d expect.
It's not what is expected, as I showed above, a car may have all the necessary parts intact but unless there's a driver it won't have speed, in the same vein a body may be present but without a spirit and soul it won't have life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Drosophilla, posted 10-29-2009 3:24 PM Drosophilla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-30-2009 2:56 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 96 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-30-2009 6:06 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 102 by Coragyps, posted 10-30-2009 7:12 AM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 88 of 191 (533315)
10-30-2009 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Meldinoor
10-29-2009 4:08 PM


No what you have is a lifeless organism a body not life.
Thank you for sharing your religious beliefs with us.
Now, let's address the facts.
There's nothing religious about my quote above.
I'm not referring to decomposition on a larger scale. A cell that is starved of oxygen will quickly be damaged by certain chain reactions and it will die.
I have shown you that this destruction doesn't happen as fast as you're proposing, it's a process taking place in stages; the earliest cells to undergo deterioration are brain cells "Brain cells can die if deprived of oxygen for more than three minutes." http://www.deathonline.net/...hanges/heart_stops.htm,however despite damage to the brain life can carry on, in fact this is what is seen in victims of brain damage, which is the total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of blood flow and oxygenation in line with Wikipedia. Conversely, muscle cells live on for several hours meaning that heart is still intact for several hours following death even at the cellular level. Bone and skin cells can stay alive for several days as well. A great deal of cell deterioration doesn't happen right after death as Wikipedia here says,"The process of tissue breakdown may take from several days up to years" Decomposition - Wikipedia, for this reason I said a couple of times already that a dead body and a living one are not all that different from each other.
Since this is the case I reasoned out that body parts is not all that is needed for life to exist. Thus abiogenesis that claims that life spontaneously began when all the requirements for life where met cannot be true, since dead organisms, for the most part resemble living ones, having all the necessary parts for life yet are not alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 4:08 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by caffeine, posted 10-30-2009 5:45 AM Cedre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024