[email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 18/08/2005 15:49:16 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > look you are spoiling my victory. > > dogs are not the same as humans.and their lungs > are biologically different from humans. > i can prove this. > if you tried to transplant a dog lung to a human it would kill the human. > dog are not the same as humans.
If you transplant a human lung into another human it would kill him too if there was no tissue match done. Does that mean that a human's lung is not the same as a human's lung? Of course not. > > you are confused by the fact that humans keep dogs as pets and you think > therefore dogs are the same as humans. That is about an idiotic statement. Exactly the same, no, of course not, a lung from one person is not exactly the same as one from another person. But similar enough to use data collected to infer for the other, sure. They both serve the same function, oxidizing hemoglobin in the blood from air, and removing CO2 from the blood. They are composed of the same types of cells, and have the same cilia, and the same structure, with branching bronchia. > > this fuzzy emotionalism on your part is making you look like someone who is a > creationist. This is another idiotic statement. The similarity of species is fundamental to evolution theory, not creationism. You got it backwards. The question is NOT if dogs lungs are identical to humans, but similar enough that the results of experiments done on them would apply to humans. Apparently so, since medical research has used dogs for this purpose for many decades. Marshall > > > << Subj: Re: CS>Silver particles in the lungs/reply > Date: 18/08/2005 15:49:16 GMT Daylight Time > From: [email protected] (Dan Nave) > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</A> > To: [email protected] > > Ode wrote: > > Saying that a dogs lungs are different because dogs have to > pant..while > people only 'can' pant to the same effect, therefore particulates take > an > entirely different route..is like saying that people can't walk > because > they don't have enough feet. > While that might be a sort of sideways 'truth' from a dogs point of > view, > it's only because dogs don't know much about walking on two feet...and > that's not because they 'can't' walk on two feet...most of them just > never > looked into doing it, those that have don't do it very well and bark > out > silly arguements against it. [perhaps citing the fact that people who > do > that tend to fall over more than dogs...those stupid people] > > __________________________________ > > Many years ago I saw a pye dog who lived in a railway station in India. > > He had lost his back legs to a train. He did very well walking on two > legs > with his backside up in the air. > > Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of this debate and using the > rules of logic > as they have been demonstrated here, I have proven conclusively that > dog lungs work exactly the same as human lungs because both dogs and > humans can walk very well on two legs. > > Send money, > > Dan > > ;-)) > > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > > Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] > OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > Return-Path: <[email protected]> > Received: from rly-xh06.mx.aol.com (rly-xh06.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.213]) > by air-xh04.mail.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id MAILINXH41-70d43049fe321c; > Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:49:15 -0400 > Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (ultra5.eskimo.com [204.122.16.68]) by > rly-xh06.mx.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXH63-70d43049fe321c; > Thu, > 18 Aug 2005 10:49:09 -0400 > Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (IDENT:smart...@localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7IEmJFE021037; > Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:48:35 -0700 > Received: (from smart...@localhost) > by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.13.4/8.12.10/Submit) id j7IEmJZP021027; > Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:48:19 -0700 > Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:48:19 -0700 > X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to > [email protected] using -f > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.1 > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:47:19 -0500 > From: "Dan Nave" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: CS>Silver particles in the lungs/reply > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2005 14:47:54.0437 (UTC) > FILETIME=[D0C53750:01C5A403] > Resent-Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Resent-From: [email protected] > Reply-To: [email protected] > X-Mailing-List: <[email protected]> archive/latest/84440 > X-Loop: [email protected] > List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > Precedence: list > Resent-Sender: [email protected] > X-AOL-IP: 204.122.16.68 > X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:496062056:15032385 > X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 > > >>
