Search results

Let's take the liver. Vital to a human life. There's only one on board. God mate, why only one of these? Also on a separate note, why does liver taste so nice with bacon and onion?

Is toothpaste what causes appendices to go ape sh1t and explode? Perhaps that's why kids get appendicitouses (chk spelling), because they tend to eat more toothpaste cos it tastes nice.

Thank you, that was well put.

Is this incase they need to look something up which is not really a part of the report, more of an add on containing relevent, yet 'additional' information?

See my post about the appendix above. Design flaw I tell you.

Also, whilst this question has been put out there, what are we doing with appendix's (or appendices?). Only one each, but isn't this an entirely useless organ?

So, either kidneys are a bit of a design flaw or they are recognised as being hard working and more likely to pack up, and therefore two are provided. This compares to say, the liver, although George Best probably would probably preferred a backup.

Therefore, as we have ascertained that we can only have one heart, let's stick it behind its own strong cage for ultimate protection. Clever.

Legs aren't vital organs. Plus women need two legs.

Agreed it would be a tricky design having two pumps on one blood system. Rather a waste of energy to have them both pumping at once.

This is all about air capacity, so I can fully understand having two smaller bags of air as opposed to one big one.

Aesthetics

I'm not knocking the fact that I have two kidneys, I may need them both one day, and many folk rely on the second one for medical reasons. Just wondered, though, what makes kidneys so special to warrant us having two. Why is only one heart and liver provided when they are equally as vital to...