You've got more bacterial cells than human cells in you

[TeleMad]

I think I've said that here before, but couldn't support it at the time. I just happened to come across an explicit statement of this last night.

 

"In fact, the number of bacteria that normally inhabit the human body (about 700 trillion cells) exceeds the number of its own human cells (about 70 trillion)." (Biology: Fifth Edition, Solomon, Berg, & Martin, Harcourt College Publishing, 1999, p497)

[MojcaS]

I think I've said that here before, but couldn't support it at the time. I just happened to come across an explicit statement of this last night.

 

that is normal- we are living world for the bacteria and viruses- more or less we cannot exist without them.

 

And the are so much smaller and so very usefull:)

[Fishteacher73]

This little tid bit is also brought up in A Short History of Nearly Everything.

[geokker]

I thought the gastrointestinal tract is really outside the body - we're tubes. So the bulk of the bacteria is clinging to our wettest, stinkiest parts. Yummers.

[TeleMad]

I thought the gastrointestinal tract is really outside the body - we're tubes.

 

Yeah, I've heard that too, but I personally don't buy it. Here's my reasoning.

 

Both our anterior and posterior openings are closed virtually all of the time. When they are, the GI tract is basically an elongated cavity running from one end to the other our body: it is totally inside of us, sealed off completely from the outside world. And anything within it, like food (a bolus or chyme) is also completely inside of it, and therefore, completely inside of us. In addition, we also a series of sphincters (such as the cardiac and pyloric sphincters) that close off subsections of the GI tract to form individual sealed-at-both-ends elongated subcavities.

 

If we walked around all day with our mouths, anuses, and sphincters all open, such that food could pass directly through our entire GI tract without running into any closed opening, then the idea that things inside our GI tract weren't actaully in our body might work for me. But under normal conditions, that isn't the case and I don't buy it.

[geokker]

I think the reasoning is that the GIT is continous with the outside of the body. So, if the GIT is inside the body, where would the heart be? The 'inner inside'?

[TeleMad]

I think the reasoning is that the GIT is continous with the outside of the body. So, if the GIT is inside the body, where would the heart be? The 'inner inside'?

 

Huh? The heart's not in the GI tract, it's surrounded by the pericardial cavity, which is in the mediastinum. I don't get what you're trying to say there.

 

Regardless, the fact remains that after I've ingested food and it's reached, say, my duodenum, it (the chyme) is inside of me, not outside of me. It is 100%, fully enclosed by my body. There is no path for a hand or medical device to travel from the outside of my body to that mostly digested food that does not pass through my skin and other tissues, or require me opening my mouth (or the other end). It's like Prego ... It's in there.

 

 

Here's the deal. The average person says, and accepts, that ingested food is inside his/her body. Some biologists like to get technical and say that it's not: I guess they think this 'amazing' fact makes them look smarter. Well, they're wrong: technically, food in the GI tract IS inside of the body.

[bumab]

There is no path for a hand or medical device to travel from the outside of my body to that mostly digested food that does not pass through my skin and other tissues

 

The traditional definition of "inside the body."

 

...or require me opening my mouth (or the other end).

 

Your added contingency.

 

I'm pretty sure that the cellular structure of the GI tract is similar devlopmentally to the skin, but I'll have to look that up.

[TeleMad]

Your added contingency.

 

And? What is the contigency for the opposing position? An entire open pathway running from outside the body at one end to outside the body at the other end: from open mouth through open anus. Now, is that the common case? Nope. It's probably a safe bet that no people walk around most of the day with their mouth, and their anus, and all of their GI-tract sphincters open simultaneously. No, the common case is for the GI tract to be closed off in a manner that creates at least one internal compartment ... you know, where ingested food would be :-)

[bumab]

And? What is the contigency for the opposing position?

 

There isn't one.

 

An entire open pathway running from outside the body at one end to outside the body at the other end: from open mouth through open anus. Now, is that the common case? Nope.

 

That's not part of the traditional definition, that's part of your definition. You are using a disengenous argument- you can't define the term and use that definition to attack other, alternate definitions. That's not a valid argument.

 

Just nitpicking ;)

[TeleMad]

I'm pretty sure that the cellular structure of the GI tract is similar devlopmentally to the skin, but I'll have to look that up.

 

And what difference would that make?

[bumab]

It would lend credence to the traditional definition.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: And? What is the contigency for the opposing position?

 

Bumad: There isn't one.

 

Oh really? Then please explain food in the GI tract is NOT inside the body?

 

 

TeleMad: An entire open pathway running from outside the body at one end to outside the body at the other end: from open mouth through open anus. Now, is that the common case? Nope.

 

Bumab: That's not part of the traditional definition, that's part of your definition.

 

No, it's part of the "definition" the person I responded to used. Take a look.

 

You've yet to explain how something inside our GI tract can legitimately be considered to NOT be inside our bodies.

 

The only reasonable way I can think of would be for it to not be fully enclosed: for their to be a direct route into or out of the body to it that doesn't have to pass through the body itself.

 

You've got a better "Definition"? Please tell us.

[TeleMad]

It would lend credence to the traditional definition.

 

No it wouldn't.

[bumab]

The only reasonable way I can think of would be for it to not be fully enclosed: for their to be a direct route into our out of the body that to it that doesn't have to pass through the body itself.

 

Simple, I use what was said earlier. It's not in the body if it doesn't have to pass through anything on it's way in or out. It's in the body if it has to pass through the body to go in or out.

 

But your understanding of that is what is wrong- the (undigested) food doesn't pass through the body on it's way in or out. Nutrients pass through the body when they are absorbed. Food that is not absorbed, or foriegn objects, do not pass through the body. They are enclosed by the body in the same way I can enclose a penny in my fist. That penny does not have to pass "through my body" to leave my fist, I just open my hand. Simple as that. Your use of the words "pass through" were incorrect.

[TeleMad]

Just nitpicking

 

I agree, but in a different manner than the way I nitpick. I've emphasized the part that applies to your nitpicking.

 

"nitpicking: minute and usu. unjustified criticism".

[TeleMad]

Simple, I use what was said earlier. It's not in the body if it doesn't have to pass through anything on it's way in or out. It's in the body if it has to pass through the body to go in or out.

 

And what the hell does that have to do with the similarity in cellular structure developmentally that you alluded to? Think you can form a coherent argument?