Number of people currently alive today, current ages. Fail to take into account deaths that occur not involving heart failure due to “max number of hearbeats” instead of things like disease, also likely fail to take into account similar deaths in other species populations, take said data, form a graph with body mass and log BMR, and state, as fact, that all mammals have invariable around 1.5 billion heartbeats in them.
When in fact I have shown that many humans have twice that.
Well I dare say I have a lot more faith in the people who wrote those articles than I do your opinion and what you think is “poking holes”. Oh wait, I forgot, you’re an undergrad and you read Nature. :rolleyes:
Well, the fact that you keep on stating it as if it supports your argument tends to actually discredit your argument.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought you were capable of reading. Silly me. Read the literature, then come back and stop asking me for evidence. I’ve provided you with plenty of evidence.
There’s a similar relationship but to a different power for heartbeats. If you read the fucking literature, you would know this.
Cite? Because my calculations bring them a lot closer together.
Well I would like it if you understood what you were arguing against before you argued it, but hey, maybe I just have high standards of students. It’s an established scientific theory, if someone like you could easily pick it apart, why haven’t others?
And, on preview:
Wow! Why don’t you forward on your brilliant maths to them right now and show them wrong! No, I really want you to write a paper clearly detailing a better theory. And submit it to Science.
On average mammals have approximately 1.5 billion heartbeats. Did you take the data? Do you know how it was experimentally obtained?
Again, it becomes obvious you have not read the articles provided. If you had, you would realise the correlation between heart rate and body mass doesn’t have a lot to do with BMR.
Go on, why don’t you send in your rebuttal article to Science? If you’re so damned sure allometry is completely wrong, why let those measly scientists publish articles on it? Damn those Biophysicists, what do they know?
Care to share those calculations? Especially the ones that bring human heartrate lower? Oh wait, you have a PhD so Cecil and all those “google” links must be wrong, change the date to fit the theory, typical.
Yes, I do have links:
Average lifespan of a mouse, 18 months (in wild). Average heartrate for a mouse is about 600 bpm. Calculations: 473,040,000 heartbeats.
I already showed my math, which was exactly similar to Cecils. But you know better than cecil right? I mean you are such an amazing Grad student, right?
If you tell me the physical nature of why exactly the sky is Mauve, I don’t need to read your scientific literature, since I KNOW for a freaking fact without scholarly articles that the sky is not mauve. Just as I know from simple calculations that your theory is not accurate.
Why bother, you seem to be the only person supporting this claim. That and your “Journal.” Certainly hasn’t been mentioned in any of my classes.
On Average all mammals have 1.5 billion heartbeats isn’t the same thing as saying that “All mammals have approximately the same number of heartbeats per lifetime.” If you can’t see that, then you need to go back to school.
Go on, send that in. I’m sure they’d love to hear about your wonderful proof. Even if the number isn’t correct, it doesn’t prove the theory wrong. And I got half of 1.5 billion, it’s not hard to find a cite that claims a mouse’s heart beat is 700bpm and it lives for 2 years.
I’m not a grad student. See, unlike you, I haven’t been spouting off my education as if it lends something to the argument. As far as I am concerned, Cecil is just another person, if he was never wrong, we wouldn’t have the “Comments on Cecil’s Column” forum.
Well I think all those scholarly articles would have a hard time getting published if they were as illegitamate as you say. You’re like one of those Creation Scientists, sure, they can pick apart most people’s arguments, but that doesn’t mean they’re right.
Well I haven’t learned about the Russian Revolution in any of my classes, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
And you can’t postulate what that number is? Or is it some magical number that doesn’t exist?