I don't believe I ever received an answer. Simply sayng, "oh, the laws of the universe were different back then" is not an answer. They need to say how they were different, and how they know. I suspect the reason I have not received these answers is that they need to consult a reference to know what the nitrogen cycle is.
Sauron, people think in simple terms, with simple minds. The Bible was written for simple people. A clear understanding is that Adam and Eve did not experience personal mortality until after they disobeyed God. I hope you understand that at the very least.
The laws of nature include death. But in Paradise (or the Garden of Eden), there was no death, therefore, the natural laws were different. They acknowledge that this is a mystery, and so that rules out the idea of "how they were different" because they can't answer that, since they already said it's a mystery. To keep hammering the point that they "must" explain something that's a mystery is not a fair understanding of the discussion at hand.
I thought the reason I mentioned it was pretty clear after I stated how large the earth's population would be if nothing ever died. Overpopulation is bad enough right now when people die. Care to imagine the state of the planet if nothing ever died yet reproduction still occurred? Assuming two offspring per parent, after 40 generations, there would over 2.199 trillion people on the planet.
For more on this topic, I commend to your attention the classic Star Trek episode, "The Trouble With Tribbles".
Again, they'll probably tell you mystery. The how doesn't matter. In faith, whenever one asks how, it's not necessary, and therefore never explained. For instance, when Christ healed the blind, He didn't explain how His spit mixed with dirt fixed the man's optic nerve. Would it be fair for you to ask about the mysterious healing of the blind how that was done?
After the Fall, they'll tell you, "Yes, of course, there was plenty of death." But before that, it's all mystery at least the Garden of Eden was mystery.
There are better ways to argue for science, but not this way.