Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've been watching a video related to how blood began to exist and the person in the video stated, "Human blood for example Has 13 ingredients , if you take each one separately and add them to the mix , you won't get blood. All 13 ingredients have to arrive at the same time. "

Is this true? :o 

I'll appreciate your response, thank you. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As blood has evolved over millions of years of incremental improvement, it is obviously not true.

I have no idea what this video is. But it doesn't sound reliable. (And it is a video: officially the second worst medium for communicating detailed technical or scientific information.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Night Fury said:

I've been watching a video related to how blood began to exist and the person in the video stated, "Human blood for example Has 13 ingredients , if you take each one separately and add them to the mix , you won't get blood. All 13 ingredients have to arrive at the same time. "

Is this true? :o 

I'll appreciate your response, thank you. 

 

Sounds more like H P Lovecraft or Algernon Blackwood to me than a scientific presentation.

 

You should look to more respected sources for example this one

Ernest Balwin

The Nature of Biochemistry  1967

Cambridge university Press

The figures he presents speak for themselves.

blood1.thumb.jpg.15b8c869cb07a7023b88923a96f4ad21.jpg

 

 

Interestingly the % of gases in the blood is nothing like the % of gases in the atmousphere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Night Fury said:

I've been watching a video related to how blood began to exist and the person in the video stated, "Human blood for example Has 13 ingredients , if you take each one separately and add them to the mix , you won't get blood. All 13 ingredients have to arrive at the same time. "

Is this true? :o 

I'll appreciate your response, thank you. 

 

Irrelevant even if true. The issue is whether something is useful in some other state. 'What was present in nature before blood reached its current state, and how did that function in organisms?' would be a question to ask. One could ask about organisms that don't use blood. One could ask what was the fitness improvement blood provided, and how that changed over time.

It is equally true to say that a motorcycle has multiple essential parts, and if you remove one of them you don't have a motorcycle anymore. But remove the engine and you basically have a bicycle. So while you don't have a motorcycle, that phrasing misses the point (perhaps intentionally) that you still have a viable vehicle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Night Fury said:

Human blood for example Has 13 ingredients

No it hasn't.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.