I almost choked to death on pizza!

[Subduction Zone]

I think we are looking at the same evidence but coming to a completely different conclusion.

If you look at a fish and design a human anatomy to match a fish, there would be no water for our gills to assimilate the oxygen and we would asphyxiate even as the fish would. So gills wouldn't work.

To breathe through the skin, as a frog, would require our skins to be moist. Our ambiance doesn't facilitate that capacity.

A snake requires a lung that goes throughout their body. The glottis extends outward and shifts to the side of the mouth to breathe while eating. They have no teeth and don't speak. Hard to equate this as feasible for a human application.

No... it seems like the one we have is still the best engineering feat for our breathing and eating.

I doubt that evolution will make it better than what it is.

Lungs existed, and in fact still do exist in some fish, along with gills. Gills never became lungs. Lungs replaced gills.

 

[Kenny]

Lungs existed, and in fact still do exist in some fish, along with gills. Gills never became lungs. Lungs replaced gills.

Yes... they do and did.

Whether lungs replaced gills or visa versa - I couldn't tell. Do you have a source?

 

[metis]

Somehow... it looks a little familiar:

View attachment 56407

Yes, it's also known as the "Butt-Ugly Fish".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can see that the two of us will not be able to meet together on this one since I can and I do know it to be true. I can be as certain as you are certain that it is not true.

And here we have it... a complete misconstruing of reality that you are willing to engage in. Did I say I KNOW it to be not true? Did I say this? Once? Please find where I did and point it out to me. Fail.

You say that I "want to believe" but that cuts both ways.

What - meaning that I "don't want to believe?" Is that what you think? Or, rather, is that what you'd like to believe? Haha. Seriously... it isn't that I "don't want to" believe. Not at all. It is that I CANNOT believe based on the state of the evidence and the fact that NONE of this bullcrap you state that you are so confident exists presents itself in reality in any way. I CANNOT believe. It isn't that I "don't want to." Do you get it? Present me the proper evidence and I will have NO CHOICE but to believe. Short of that, however, and you can go sit on a traffic cone.

But, in reality, in the scope of our lives,it won't matter because God isn't changing it in our lifetime and evolution isn't changing it either (whatever our philosophical world view is)

Just because you can't witness evolution at work in your meager portion of life means it isn't happening, right? Means that all the evidence that points to evolution having happened and being an ongoing process is all just make-believe because KEN CAN'T WITNESS a monkey turning into a man. You need to wrap your head around what constitutes ACTUAL evidence for something. Right now you may as well just have your head twisted right off your shoulders for all you seem to comprehend it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whether lungs replaced gills or visa versa - I couldn't tell.

Biologists can.

You know, the people that actually study this stuff.

Those self-declared authorities that YOU listen to, don't know this either. They don't study this stuff. They study ancient tales instead. And they think those tales override observable reality, for some reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point is that it isn't an engineering problem because it is the best engineered method and that if you think you could "engineer" it better, please let me know. At this point, all you are doing is making a point without a suggested better-engineered way of doing it thus making your point mute.

And like I said before, if you crash driving 150 mph on a sharp curve, it isn't an engineering problem. If you swallow a big piece of meat without chewing and then choke, it isn't an engineering problem. Quite simple IMV.


No, it is what you said. You said that the brain grew (evolution) but the mouth didn't. An engineering problem by your world-view of evolution especially if you admit that there are design flaws.

Again... I don't agree with your position that bipedalism is bad for the back. Bad posture, no exercise, too much sitting down, bad eating habits, abuse to the body... I believe these are the problems that affect the back. Are you saying that the things I mentioned don't affect the back?



Can't compare apples with an orangutan.



You brought up sports and now you are taking sports away. I will admit that age will affect your body but it isn't because of bipedalism, it is because we age. Now, taking into account the abuse we give our bodies and you have early pains.



And I disagree.



And I disagree. Our spine was created for bipedalism.



I believe the mechanism and the muscle system DOES in fact close up one direction so that food and water never reach the lungs.

now, chew your food at least thirty times, don't overstuff your mouth, let the saliva begin the digestive process and "voila" you don't choke. Your perfectly engineered esophagus will work correctly and you won't die from asphyxiation.

Quite simple.

The engineering solution would be two completely separate tubes for breathing and swallowing food and water.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think we are looking at the same evidence but coming to a completely different conclusion.

If you look at a fish and design a human anatomy to match a fish, there would be no water for our gills to assimilate the oxygen and we would asphyxiate even as the fish would. So gills wouldn't work.

To breathe through the skin, as a frog, would require our skins to be moist. Our ambiance doesn't facilitate that capacity.

A snake requires a lung that goes throughout their body. The glottis extends outward and shifts to the side of the mouth to breathe while eating. They have no teeth and don't speak. Hard to equate this as feasible for a human application.

No... it seems like the one we have is still the best engineering feat for our breathing and eating.

I doubt that evolution will make it better than what it is.

So no talking snakes then.

 

[Clara Tea]

Today, I nearly died by choking to death on a piece of stringy cheese pizza that became caught in my throat. I'd accidentally swallowed this food before it was chewed up. As soon as this piece of cheesy pizza became lodged in my throat, I attempted to clear my throat by swallowing as much as I could in order to down the food from my throat into my stomach. When this maneuver failed to dislodge the food caught in my throat, my last chance of survival was to dislodge the chocking hazard with a strong gag reaction. My reflex of gaging in order to clear my throat saved me from chocking to death on a piece of stringy cheesed pizza . I was shaken up because I could not breath during this ordeal. I wish people had a separate airway passage to their lungs than just the one that is also used to pass food from their mouths to their stomach. With just the throat as the only airway passage for respiration from the nose, mouth to the lungs, people are prone to death by getting their throat obstructed by food. In the United States, the odds of one dying from choking on food is around 1 in 2,535. Deaths by choking U.S. number 1945-2019 | Statista.

Because people's bodies are prone to being choked to death by food, I seriously doubt the human body is intelligently designed.

The Heimlich maneuver can be used to to save somebody from choking to death on food,

Pizza almost killed you (and you would have joined God). Thank you for finally figuring out why the Vatican is in Italy.

 

[Kenny]

The engineering solution would be two completely separate tubes for breathing and swallowing food and water.

Which creates a problem when your nose is stopped up because of an illness (flu, cold etc). You would simply die.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which creates a problem when your nose is stopped up because of an illness (flu, cold etc). You would simply die.

2 tubes would mean 2 openings.

Stop inventing silly problems.

 

[Kenny]

And here we have it... a complete misconstruing of reality that you are willing to engage in. Did I say I KNOW it to be not true? Did I say this? Once? Please find where I did and point it out to me. Fail.

I'm sorry, you seem to be a little irate in your responses... have I offended you? why does this subject matter create contention?

" I say it would be better, and with the diversity of life and models of life we see all around us," - this suggests that what you are offering is true and mine is false.

I'm simply saying that each model fits the purpose of what it was created for. For us, not having a lung go all the way to the end of our body (like a snake), or breathing through the skin which requires constant moisture (like a frog), or gill that needs water (like a fish) does not fit us as human beings. IMV, our best model is what we currently have.

 

[Kenny]

2 tubes would mean 2 openings.

Stop inventing silly problems.

You never had a child whose nose was completely stopped up? I didn't know I was inventing a problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You never had a child whose nose was completely stopped up? I didn't know I was inventing a problem.

You have a nose and a mouth.
Currently you eat, talk and breath with the mouth.

Add a "food tube". Add an opening.

Now, you only use your mouth to speak and breath.
And you have an extra "food hole" with which you can't choke.

In fact, you now can continue to speak and breath while you feed.

You have a really limited imagination.

 

[Kenny]

You have a nose and a mouth.
Currently you eat, talk and breath with the mouth.

Add a "food tube". Add an opening.

Now, you only use your mouth to speak and breath.
And you have an extra "food hole" with which you can't choke.

In fact, you now can continue to speak and breath while you feed.

You have a really limited imagination.

That sounds kind of weird. Are you suggesting no teeth? A larger chest? Perhaps a extra food mouth near your navel?.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That sounds kind of weird.

Only because you are a human with the body of a human as we know it.

Imagine how it is to be an animal living in dark deep seas with tentacles where every tentacle has its own brain.
To me that's waaaay weirder then having an extra opening for food.

Yet it exists. It's called an octopus.

Are you suggesting no teeth? A larger chest? Perhaps a extra food mouth near your navel?.

Wherever, however. It would be "the normal" in that setting.
If we would already have been like that, we'ld probably think the idea of having one opening for breathing, talking and eating to be kinda disgusting.

 

[Kenny]

Only because you are a human with the body of a human as we know it.

Imagine how it is to be an animal living in dark deep seas with tentacles where every tentacle has its own brain.
To me that's waaaay weirder then having an extra opening for food.

Yet it exists. It's called an octopus.



Wherever, however. It would be "the normal" in that setting.
If we would already have been like that, we'ld probably think the idea of having one opening for breathing, talking and eating to be kinda disgusting.

hmmmm.... we don't live in an ocean.

It still seems like we have our best engineering breathing/eating/talking apparatus ever conceived and the best for what we are made for.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

hmmmm.... we don't live in an ocean.

//facepalm

It doesn't matter.
The strangest of creatures live on land as well.

The point is that they are only "strange" to us, because we are used to our own morphology.

It's quite hard to imagine being a bat and "seeing" through echo location.
But it's not that big a deal. Echolocation evolved multiple times independently. It's not that rare.

In short, your "that's weird" is not an argument against the point. There are far weirder things in the biological world.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm sorry, you seem to be a little irate in your responses... have I offended you? why does this subject matter create contention?

Here we go again with the "you have offended me, therefore your replies should be judged differently than if you were what I consider civil" shenanigans. I don't care how you feel about how I say what I say. I just do not. Respond or don't. That is all there really is to worry about. Everything else is just fluff. You "feelings." Good luck with those.

" I say it would be better, and with the diversity of life and models of life we see all around us," - this suggests that what you are offering is true and mine is false.

In my opinion (something I, at least, am entirely willing to admit and put forth, unlike some people), you are supporting a less than desirable model, and I am trying to persuade you to see my side. That's why we're having the conversation at all, isn't it? You have your side to go to bat for (albeit a side with very little in the way of observational support), and I have mine. What did you think was going on here? I understand that you think in absolutes - like "Ken is right, and what he believes is true, and anyone who believes otherwise is against the truth" but some of us do understand that it is the most accurate model we can choose from that is the best that we can go with at any moment. You don't get it. I understand, as you have made that abundantly clear. Abundantly. It isn't in any way admirable, but it is, at the very least, clear.

I'm simply saying that each model fits the purpose of what it was created for.

And what "purpose" is that for humans, Ken? You've got this all figured out, have you? Even you just talking in terms of humans having "a purpose" is ridiculous.

For us, not having a lung go all the way to the end of our body (like a snake), or breathing through the skin which requires constant moisture (like a frog), or gill that needs water (like a fish) does not fit us as human beings. IMV, our best model is what we currently have.

Have you no imagination? Perhaps your God doesn't either? Let's make a separate breathing apparatus as a hole in our chest directly to our lungs. The esophagus is completely separate from this, and in no way obstructs it. How's that sound? Does that seem entirely implausible given what we are able to witness in the forms and variations of life around us, do you think? May be it IS impossible (how would I know), but in the end, the point isn't that THAT specific thing is possible, it's just that SOMETHING is... something that would keep us from dying of choking on our own sustenance every once in a while.

 

[Kenny]

//facepalm

It doesn't matter.
The strangest of creatures live on land as well.

The point is that they are only "strange" to us, because we are used to our own morphology.

It's quite hard to imagine being a bat and "seeing" through echo location.
But it's not that big a deal. Echolocation evolved multiple times independently. It's not that rare.

In short, your "that's weird" is not an argument against the point. There are far weirder things in the biological world.

you are correct but still have made no headway on a better model than what we have for who we are.

 

[Kenny]

Have you no imagination? Perhaps your God doesn't either? Let's make a separate breathing apparatus as a hole in our chest directly to our lungs. The esophagus is completely separate from this, and in no way obstructs it. How's that sound? Does that seem entirely implausible given what we are able to witness in the forms and variations of life around us, do you think? May be it IS impossible (how would I know), but in the end, the point isn't that THAT specific thing is possible, it's just that SOMETHING is... something that would keep us from dying of choking on our own sustenance every once in a while.

That is called a feeding tube... and it will not sustain our lives for what we have to do.

Imaginations are great... but your suggestion isn't functional.