Hi,
I would like to add to this "conversation" re: the comparison of human lungs to dog lungs; Although, I know very little about the structure of "dogs" lungs. We should agree that a dog is a mammal and because he is warm blooded creature would process oxygen in a "similar" manner as humans, Regardless of whether he pants or not. We all remember science class, back in the day asking us what characteristics make up a mammal right? With this being said; I would have to agree with Ode. His explanation seems to be the most open minded. The lung of a dog may be physically different, and based on its genetic make-up in fact may not work in a human body. Take a car for example. (this may be a crude one in comparison) but if you were too take a "motor" from a very small car, And transferred it into a full sized Cadillac. One would still have a running motor but probably wouldn't be very successful in moving the caddy only because of the power to weight ratio. Eventually pushing the motor to move this car would result in fatigue and it would eventually quit or seize. Both cars have internal combustion engines and work off the same operating principle. Even though it can be modified to fit doesn't mean it will be successful in creating inertia. Both need air and gasoline to produce combustion = power. However, we are speaking of organic material here. But still keeping in mind the principle of the lung in a land mammal. Regards, E 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. you are confused by the fact that humans keep dogs as pets and you think therefore dogs are the same as humans. this fuzzy emotionalism on your part is making you look like someone who is a creationist. 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] __________________________________ -- 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: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
