 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / March 2004an animal that combines lung and stomach? Re: 136 lbs now and 2 day fast to get to 130 lbs
No need for me to report back on thursday as to whether I lost 3 lbs per day to get me from 136 lbs down to 130 lbs via Fasting + Exercise because I broke my Fast this evening by eating a bowl of chicken noodle soup and another bowl of potato soup. I experienced something I had not before whilst Fasting. I had experienced today almost an overwhelming fatigue. When dropping my weight from 156 lbs to 136 lbs in several weeks of FAsting and semi-fasting I never experienced such lethargy and fatigue as I did today. I suppose as I get closer to 130 lbs that it is going to cut into my ability to do physical hard work and labor and strenous exercise. So I may have to compromise here and go on a Semi-Fast diet + Exercise. This is where I eat something but just a little, like 2 bowls of soup per day. I think my main culprit for getting me up to 156 lbs in the past 4 years was my horrible habit of eating at least a pint of Ben&Gerrys or HaagenDaz ice cream per day plus a chocolate candy bar and either a pie or carrot cake or other pastry. So if I eliminate those three items I think I can lose weight without putting myself on a strict diet. But I still have this tummy bulge that I want to get rid of so that there is a straight line down from my chest to legs. When I was running today I could smell the odor of fried chicken from a restaurant which brought up some questions. Can a human body get nourishment from the air breathed? I think so because the lungs take in any number of chemicals. But I suspect no human can survive for any length of time by using the lungs as both air getters and food getters and besides, the lungs cannot get water into the body. But I wonder if there is any animal that has one organ that serves both functions of getting food and water and also air. And I wonder if in the future evolution of humanity, that the stomach is eliminated and the lungs purpose increased to provide for both eating/drinking and breathing. And there would be a huge problem with waste material. Interesting new ideas to explore as to combining functions of 2 organs into 1 organ. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > When I was running today I could smell the odor of fried chicken from > a restaurant which brought up some questions. Can a human body get [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots > of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxie Well there is the whale... who takes in food, oxygen, and water in one gulp. yummy! Not sure how they process all that though. --------------------------------------- come check out Serenity and Good Faith! Offers stressed out individuals a place to relax and call home. Includes resources on how to relax and great herbal remedies. come join the community! Free to everyone! http://www.freewebs.com/guildofgoodfaith/indexserenity.html >> When I was running today I could smell the odor of fried chicken from >> a restaurant which brought up some questions. Can a human body get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> And there would be a huge problem with waste material. Interesting new >> ideas to explore as to combining functions of 2 organs into 1 organ. >Well there is the whale... who takes in food, oxygen, and water in one >gulp. yummy! Not sure how they process all that though. Not at all. Whales have lungs and breathe air, like all mammals. They do not take in oxygen with water. As to the original post -- humans get no nutrients whatsoever from their lungs. The amount of nutrients contained in the odors we inhale have essentially no nutritive value, they are in such tiny quantity. There are numerous filter-feeding animals like sponges and tunicates (sea squirts) and clams that use the same water stream as a source of both food and oxygen. Usually, though, there are quite distinct structures that take in nutrients which are different from those that take in oxygen. Virtually all animals (except the sponges) have specialized feeding structures -- mouths and stomachs -- strictly for food processing. Many animals do not have specialized respiratory organs (neither gills nor lungs nor tracheal tubes) but exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide simply through their body surface. Many worms of all sorts of varieties do this. Still, the respiratory exchange surface is distinct from the nutrient absorbing surface. Probably the sole exception is the tapeworm. Since it lives inside our intestine, it doesn't have a digestive system at all. Instead it simply absorbs nutrients through its body surface, the same way it absorbs oxygen. (snip what I wrote) > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > simply absorbs nutrients through its body surface, the same way it > absorbs oxygen. Thanks, I may need the above some future date. I am not going to have time now to dive into this topic. But it interests me from another standpoint of the Quantum Macro-Dualisms between plants and animals where one group seems to take the reverse of the other group. Examples-- plants breathe CO2 and give off O2 and the reverse for animals. Plants take animal waste as fertilizer and animals take plant waste of fruit as food. Plants have a carbon based skeletal system and animals have a calcium based skeletal system. Plants are immobile and animals mobile. And the list goes on and on. But perhaps the idea that the breathing organs of animals must in 99% of the cases be separated from the food organs maybe a dual with plants. So, Mr. Norman can you talk about the organs for breathing by plants compared to their eating or photosynthesis organs in plants? Can plants combine breathing and photosynthesis into one organ? If they can, then that would somewhat spoil my growing list of Quantum Macro-Dualisms. Because if plants easily combine breathing organs with photosynthesis organs yet animals in 99% of cases have to have these organs separate throws some bit of strife into my Dualism of plants to animals. Mr. Norman, please talk about those organs in plants. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > (snip what I wrote) > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > skeletal system and animals have a calcium based skeletal system. > Plants are immobile and animals mobile. And the list goes on and on. Actually, most plants breathe oxygen just like we do, the gas exchange process taking place in their root system. They use CO2 in photosynthesis, a process by which plants use water, CO2, H2O and sunlight to makes sugar for food. Oxygen is released as a by product of that process. This is a seperate process unrelated to their breatheing. For example, one can kill a tree simply by increasing the depth of the soil over it's root base to the point where the soil around it's roots is no longer sufficently aireated for the gas exchange process to take place. If the tree can't grow new roots to a depth where it can get enough oxygen swiftly enough, it will die of suffocation. This is especally evident in Mangrove trees. As they live in anaerobic swamps, they grow with parts of their root system exposed to the air so that they can breathe. > But perhaps the idea that the breathing organs of animals must in 99% > of the cases be separated from the food organs maybe a dual with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots > of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > Actually, most plants breathe oxygen just like we do, the gas exchange > process taking place in their root system. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > anaerobic swamps, they grow with parts of their root system exposed to > the air so that they can breathe. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I had known that plants breathe oxygen, especially at night, but I had failed to see it in such importance in that the roots are different from the leaves. So that the roots are the stomachs of plants and the leaves are like the lungs of plants. Otto, thanks for the clarification, but it does not damage the theory of Quantum-Macro-Dualisms of plants to animals. What will destroy that theory is if you can create a plant that is calcium based and not carbon based. If you can create a human in the distant future that has a carbon fiber skeletal system having replaced its calcium based skeleton. If you can create a plant with photosynthesis that uses oxygen and expels CO2. Physicists know of the Quantum Dualism of Particle to Wave and how the two co-exist and are inseparable. Well, I conjecture that biology as a science has Macro dualisms where Plants are like a macro Wave and where Animals are like a Macro Particle (or vice versa) and that the two rely upon each other and that if one were to completely vanish the other would soon vanish. And most importantly when life was created on Earth, the two were created together spontaneously in that some form of animal-like creatures were created alongside plantlike creatures. Current science posits that plant life came first and there were billions of years before animal-like life appeared. My Macro-Dualism theory would say that is false, and that both animal-like and plant-like creatures appeared together. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> Actually, most plants breathe oxygen just like we do, the gas exchange >> process taking place in their root system. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots >of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies In another post I describe a number of reasons why your plant-animal dualism is incorrect. I would point out here some other reasons: Plant life (what we now call the plant kingdom) did not come first, billions of years before animals. The first life was some form of bacteria (archea, actually). Certainly, there must have been metabolizing organisms (using chemical energy in the environment) before photosynthesis developed. Still, it is true that photosynthesis developed long before respiration -- there was no oxygen atmosphere until photosynthesis was prominent. All this happened long before anything like animals. True, there is a distinction between heterotrophic bacteria and autotrophic bacteria, but that doesn't seem to be what you mean in your dualism. My other post indicates both that there are a lot of things beyond plants and animals in the world of biology and that your notion that animals are calcium based because of the skeleton is incorrect. (snip) > In another post I describe a number of reasons why your plant-animal > dualism is incorrect. I would point out here some other reasons: I disagree. I know there is something out there and I am reaching for it and I know there will be many changes along the way until I get into a comfortable and settling position on Quantum Macro-Dualisms. All new science treads a murky first beginnings. > Plant life (what we now call the plant kingdom) did not come first, > billions of years before animals. The first life was some form of Well this is just a guess and my guess is as good as the next. > bacteria (archea, actually). Certainly, there must have been > metabolizing organisms (using chemical energy in the environment) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > plants and animals in the world of biology and that your notion that > animals are calcium based because of the skeleton is incorrect. There was a good program on TV some nights ago on NOVA about Caves and extremophiles that live in magma rock in the oceans and the microorganisms that live in caves. But the trouble with cave life of some specific caves is that they live off hydrogen sulfide but that comes from microorganisms that live off of petroleum stored deep underground and we know that petroleum is a byproduct of former living organisms, so it is hard to expect cave life on Europa or Mars without petroleum. My theory is that since cosmic rays come in energies of 10^14 MeV which is enough energy to create a small insect from purely out of nowhere that in ancient Earth, cosmic rays frequently materialized both tiny plant and animal organisms on average of about say 2 or 3 per day over the surface of Earth. Many of which did not last long but some found their surroundings suitable for life. And I expect that a search on Mars and Europa will find life forms. It still happens today on Earth where cosmic rays come to rest and a whole new life form is created at that spot but no-one is going to believe it, only after a long period of careful experiments proves it. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >(snip what I wrote) >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >Mr. Norman, please talk about those organs in plants. Another poster, silentotto, has already described the fact that plants do respiration (taking in O2 to combine with sugars to release energy and CO2) just as well as animals do. Roots, of course, have no ability to do photosynthesis and rely completely on respiration for their energy. Leaves in the dark do the same, metabolizing the sugars they produced during the light. Respiration and photosynthesis involve the exchange of O2 and CO2 with the environment and there are ordinarily special respiratory exchange surfaces to enable this. Plants have special openings on their leaves and stems (stomata and lenticels) to allow gases to exchange. Any intro biology text will describe these. Respiration also requires some source of sugar (or other organic molecule) to be oxidized. Plants are autotrophs. That is, they are able to synthesize the food they need from inorganic sources. So, to do photosynthesis, all they need is water and CO2, plus energy from the sun. To build proteins and other biochemicals, though, they need other nutrients like N and P, as well as a variety of minerals like K, Fe, Mg, etc. They get all these from the soil and have special mechanisms in their root systems to absorb these. In a sense, then, you can say that plants "eat" using their roots but they "breathe" to do photosynthesis using their leaves (and sometimes stems). In any event, your notions of duality are greatly flawed for many reasons. Plants are not the opposite of animals. As related above, both do respiration. A wide variety of plant-like things, the algae and some bacteria, also do photosynthesis. Another variety of bacteria build sugars from chemosynthesis, a different metabolic pathway that does not require light. Very few animals have skeletons of calcium -- vertebrate bone is not that widespread in the animal world. In fact, chitin is probably the most important skeleton and it is primarily "carbon" (it is a modified sugar polymer). Many of the single-celled algae are just as motile as the single-celled animal-like organisms. One, Euglena, has both plant and animal characteristics. There are a number of animals that are as stationary as plants -- coral and sponges and barnacles for example. Fungi are neither plants nor animals and play a vitally essential role in ecosystems. Plants and animals are not opposite but are somewhat complementary and interdependent. Still, both are also complementary to and interdependent on the bacteria and fungi that live inside them and around them in the environment. In the terrestrial environment where we live, we tend to think of a duality between plants and animals because those are the large organisms that we normally encounter. But any close look at soil or at an aquatic ecosystem reveals an enormously complex system filled with an incredible diversity of fungi, single-celled protists, and bacteria that we are really only just beginning to appreciate. Without those, our lives would be impossible. (snipped) > Another poster, silentotto, has already described the fact that plants > do respiration (taking in O2 to combine with sugars to release energy [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In any event, your notions of duality are greatly flawed for many > reasons. Plants are not the opposite of animals. As related above, You have to keep an open mind on this difficult new science. It is certain that the world is quantum dualistic and the EPR experiments and the Bell Inequality prove it true. It is not a strictly REverse relationship nor is it and opposite relationship but rather a complementary relationship. One observation is that plants often need chemicals of the periodic table for which animals do not and vice versa such as Nitrogen. So it is not a strict opposite nor a reverse relationship but it is some relationship. And I am sure there is a full theory out there and I have just taken a peek around some edges. > both do respiration. A wide variety of plant-like things, the algae > and some bacteria, also do photosynthesis. Another variety of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > bacteria that we are really only just beginning to appreciate. > Without those, our lives would be impossible. I do have a problem with the theory that Plants are like Quantum Wave and Animals like quantum particle in a complementary duality is the problem that there are other kingdoms of biology such as bacteria and even viruses. So, there is something there which is vastly big and important and I have just begun to take sneek glimpses of this new science. ARchimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >(snipped) <snipped> >You have to keep an open mind on this difficult new science. It is >certain that the world is quantum dualistic and the EPR experiments [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And I am sure there is a full theory out there and I have just taken a >peek around some edges. Just a quick comment and then I'll leave you to your arcane search for oneness (or, considering it is a duality theory, for twoness). The notion that nitrogen is an element needed by only plants or by only animals (it is not clear from you post which you mean) is so ludicrous that nothing else you say matters any more. If you really want to explore a "difficult new science" for the full theory waiting to be found, you would do well first to find out just what is out there. > (snipped) > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > explore a "difficult new science" for the full theory waiting to be > found, you would do well first to find out just what is out there. Broadly there are two classes of minds who endeavor to do science. One class is like Norman where it is darn hard to be able to do science that is not marked out black and white and where such a mind has enormous difficulty in ever theory-building. These type of people like Norman are well placed as "teachers", but never as science theory crafters for they simply do not have a handle on science to be able to step away from wanting everything to be black and white and no gray. As soon as anyone begins to build a theory, people like Norman come popping up to point out some fringe distractions that to Norman sink the model or theory-building. They simply have such a simple-mind grasp of the field of science that they could never themselves build a theory. To build a theory requires a mind that not only understands that there exists what may appear as "exceptions" and thus halt the theory building, but minds so strong in that science that can thence incorporate the exceptions and put the exceptions to use to build an even stronger theory at the end. Anyone with a new theory of science that ends up being true is faced with a thousands or millions of nay-saying pessimists such as Norman. It is not that these people are bad or bad for science for they are perhaps needed in the process of getting to a settled and refined end theory. It is not the people like Norman who build new theories for they are incapable. Their strong suit is to teach the subject and most of the pupils that they teach soak in and believe almost everything that Normans espouses, but amongst those pupils will arise a he/she who has a stronger science mind than Norman and who does not believe in that particular slice of Norman's proffering and ignore his habit of only looking along the edges in search of "exceptions". For example: about the NITROGEN issue I refered to is a tiny part of a larger and more important issue. Quantum Macro-Duality would say that the entire cosmos has particle wave duality starting at the Micro level but as we go into the Macro level, biology displays this Quantum Duality as proven by John Bell and his Inequality and the EPR experiments. On the Macro level we do not have a large Particle and a large Wave, instead we have Kingdoms of biology such as animals to plants. About Nitrogen, suppose the macro world had only the plant kingdom and there never existed the animal kingdom. Well, then, biology uses the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements and biology uses every abundant element from hydrogen to iodine, and some bacteria from what I understand can use uranium in that they eat uranium minerals but that is a side-note. So every element from hydrogen to iodine except those rare ones like technetium. So, if the world were only plants, how much more difficult would it be for Chemistry for plants to use all the elements except the rare ones from hydrogen to iodine? Very difficult. But, now, if you introduce animals into the world of the entire Cosmos, you see, you complement the work load of plants, you help their burden, and you make it easy on plants because where plants easily use Nitrogen but not so much calcium, well, the animals easily use calcium and not so much nitrogen. So, something that Norman temperment of science could never understand, is that in Complementarity, in Duality, there are no well defined issues of black and white. There is alot of gray. And it serves no useful purpose that every time I say something about animals, that people like Norman run around and foist their "exceptions" to whatever I say. Both of us are correct, but the theory that I am heading for is larger and more powerful than any of the "Norman tidbits of exceptions". You see, in Quantum Duality it is Complementarity and a mind like Normans of wanting to see rigid boundaries of 100% this and not that, well, such a mind is out of place in this theory building. If the Cosmos had only Plants and never any animals, then the use of the Chemical Elements of #1 hydrogen to #53 iodine and perhaps even beyond iodine with the exception of rare elements such as technetium, well, you see if plants only existed then huge numbers of those elements would not be in Biological Use. But when you create a Animal Kingdom alongside and complementary to a Plant Kingdom you easily fill in the USE by biology to fully take use of every element from hydrogen to iodine and out further. Perhaps the above may penetrate that thick brain of Norman, keep fingers crossed for good luck. Pardon me if I sound harsh on Norman, I do it only in that a jolt sometimes helps rather than spend a longer time period over someones personal science weakness. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.