|
|
uri lukin
Crustacean
|
|
come on, if you do have an answer then you argue if you dont you say its a cartoon cant you just agree with me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uri lukin
Crustacean
|
|
i thought someone would say that but after your head is in a jar for 500 years i think it stoppes blinking
|
|
|
|
|
uri lukin
Crustacean
|
|
and there is nothing to clean them from
|
|
|
|
|
|
uri lukin
Crustacean
|
|
maybe Nobody on Earth right now in reality could ever know if the head stops blinking but there where other experiments that proved that the human body adaptes. to not natural conditions. there was a man who wore reversing glasses for a few month and then his mind adapted and started seeing normal. and that only in a few month imagine that for 600 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
uri lukin
Crustacean
|
|
if the answer to everything is "its cartoon"then why do we have this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cyber_turnip
Urban Legend
|
|
if the answer to everything is "its cartoon"then why do we have this forum
I gave you TWO completely logical answers and you just put your fingers in your ears and shouted "lalalalala!". The human body can adapt when it has a reason to. That example you gave of the man wearing reversing glasses -his brain had to adapt to cope because otherwise he wouldn't be able to see. Blinking isn't like that. It's something you do. You don't think about it. It doesn't cause any problems. You wouldn't think "well I'm in a jar now, I might as well stop blinking because I have no need to do so anymore". You'd just carry on doing it because it's what you do. I still blink when I go swimming underwater. And there would still be stuff to clean from your eyes. Dust particles that get in the liquid, etc, etc. And how's this for a third answer? They consciously choose to blink so as not to appear freaky to normal people.
|
|
|
|
|
uri lukin
Crustacean
|
|
blinking does cause problems the body (even if its only a part) designed not to waste energy(calories) so the head wont blink because it has better thing to do with the energy(from evolutionary point of view) and dust particles float so they dont get attached to the eye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
cyber_turnip
Urban Legend
|
|
blinking does cause problems the body (even if its only a part) designed not to waste energy(calories) so the head wont blink because it has better thing to do with the energy(from evolutionary point of view) and dust particles float so they dont get attached to the eye.
1. That's not a real problem. Wasting the minute amount of calories is hardly a problem given that now the head doesn't even have the neck down to keep functioning. The heads in jars are fed their Torgo's executive powder and are clearly sustrained. Claudia Schiffer even talks about losing weight despite being a head in a jar so maybe they do it for exercise. 2. From an evolutionary point of view? What are you talking about? We've evolved, as humans, to blink. Being placed somewhere that'd stop us needing to, wouldn't stop us doing it unless we went out of our way to train ourselves not to do it. Or do you mean that the heads would evolve to not blink any more? Because that isn't how evolution works. 3. As for the dust particles... not all dust floats. Dust is a catch-all term for things like dirt, grit, dead cells, bits of hair and so on. Some of it sinks. Plus the heads do move about somewhat in their jars, they could easily stir the dust in by accident. Dust was only an example anyway. Other things could get into their jars quite easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
uri lukin
Crustacean
|
|
that is a once in a year incident
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aki
Professor
|
|
Because it would look creepy otherwise.
Because of habit.
Because the substance in the jars isn't moisturing their eyes, if it did they would also suffocate.
Pick one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpaceCase
Liquid Emperor
|
|
... How are dead people's heads alive in jars anyway?? - Cloning.
- Chill.
- You bumped a months-old, dormant thread for that?
Last, and most importantly:
- Welcome to our little corner of the Internet, or nerd-vana.
We call it PEEL. Step in, light some incense, and follow the chanting. Someone will be 'round presently to show you the secret handshake...
PEEL: A more vile hive of nerds and geekery you will not find...
|
|
|
|
|
Futuraman2112
Crustacean
|
|
Well at least I'm posting in regards to the subject instead of just criticizing people's grammar or b!tching about how the question has already been posted twice before, as a lot of users do on here!!
And yes, the intern showed me the handshake, and gave me a handsome gift basket courtesy of Yankee Candle and Bath & Body Works. Veh nice!
|
|
|
|
|
lemily33
Starship Captain
|
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 02-14-2011 07:53 »
« Last Edit on: 02-14-2011 07:57 »
|
|
If I can hop in here, blinking is a reflex. Individuals don't evolve - *populations* evolve. So if a race of heads reproduced and grew up in jars, they might stop blinking over half a million years or more as it became unnecessary. But individuals like, say, Nimoy, are still going to blink because their brains are evolved to cause blinking. A similarly pointless question is "why don't our appendixes [appendices?] just all shrivel up?" and the answer is that they usually don't cause problems, so there's no reason for them to do so. I realize it's been a month, but the scientist in me was twitching at the idea that an individual can evolve just because it's been 1,000 years. EDIT: I see cyber_turnip said something to the same effect, so now I see my opinion was rather pointless. Sorry. Nerdrage overtook me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nutmeg1729
Urban Legend
|
|
Well at least I'm posting in regards to the subject instead of just criticizing people's grammar or b!tching about how the question has already been posted twice before, as a lot of users do on here!!
I think someone was trying to cause offence. This thread just made me laugh. A lot. And I agree with everything that lemily said. Everyone knows that a species evolves, not an individual, right? Right?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
transgender nerd under canada
DOOP Ubersecretary
|
|
"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!"
Still makes me shake my head in disbelief that the "man evolved from monkeys" popular myth (or widely believed "fact" if you prefer) persists. Why is it understood by only a small slice of the population that man and monkeys both evolved from a common arboreal ancestor, whose genetic family tree splits somewhere before man and monkeys, and whose fossilised remains show similarities to most living primate groups? Surely the idea isn't too complex for people to grasp. Surely oversimplifying things to the point where the man on the street thinks we evolved from monkeys is as bad as thinking that God actually made us from dirt? Whilst I get that this is not your opinion, lemily, I know that it's an opinion held by many, and it's annoying that such basic things are so badly misunderstood by such a majority. Grr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|