Originally posted by Doward
Cars can run forever, again it is a question of economics not of ability, thus your anology is false, try again.
There is no such thing as a 'false analogy'. Only 'unsound analogies' or 'poor analogies'. In this case, I think the analogy does serve a purpose.
At the point of "death" for a cell, does it look any different from a live cell? No.
Yes, it looks different. If you cant see the difference, you need a better microscope (or some other tool of observation / investigation).
Scientists have been able to distinguish between the two by testing, not by "observing".
Testing is "observing".
Dye is added to the slide, dead cells will absorb the dye where live cells will not. The live cells actively reject the dye, the dead cells have ceased functioning and no longer perform that process.
Clearly there are quite profound differences in two cells. Just because you cant see those differences under a microscope does not mean they are not there.
If I have a running car and a non-running car, you can hardly tell the difference by looking at photos of the two. You need something better for your observations.
In form and composition there is no difference between a live and dead cell,
So you say, but your evidence of looking at them under a microscope simply isn't sufficient.
,the ability to differentiate between the two lies in their functions (or ability to function).
Which is a result of form and composition: clearly contradicting your earlier claim.
So what then makes them dead? What makes them alive? Scientists can tell whether something is alive or dead, but not why its alive or dead (blunt force trauma etc notwithstanding). This point you cannot disprove, or you would have.
I believe scientists, given enough time, tools and motivation, can tell why a given cell is dead. I believe that in many many cases, they already have. Do you dispute that? Are you arguing that no cause of cell death other than blunt force or trauma has ever been identified? What do you include under the heading "trauma"?
I think you would have to give a specific repeatable example of a cell that dies for no known reason for you to have any argument whatsoever. You would then have to show that scientists have tried and failed to find the reason. Next you would have to explain why you believe the reason cannot reasonably be expected to be found at a future date.