Blood, how?

[Night Fury]

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?  

I'll appreciate your response, thank you. 

 

[Strange]

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.)

[StringJunky]

It sounds like a creationist argument.

[studiot]

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?  

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.

 

 

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

 

[swansont]

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?  

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. 

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, Night Fury said:

Human blood for example Has 13 ingredients

No it hasn't.