(Via Red State) This is just … well it’s beautiful. Sarah Isgur Flores, former deputy campaign manager for the Fiorina campaign, was on MSNBC on Tuesday night to provide analysis of the election returns. And boy howdy she analyzed all right. She analyzed all up in their faces.
Month: March 2016
Larry Elder On This Election w/Some Historical Perspective
Mind you, this Larry Elder audio opens with Ronald Reagan discussing Milton Friedman.
In this fill in for Dennis Prager on Monday, Larry Elder’s first two segments of the show are really a “GOP vs Ideals” 101 course. Economics, Donald Trump, GOP nominees since 1988, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Obama, and more are covered in “Sage” fashion.
As usual I learn from Larry and I share this with you in the hopes you will as well.
For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/ ~AND~ http://www.elderstatement.com/
Glenn Foden ~ RIP ~ You Will Be Missed by Many
This post is to memorialize the untimely passing of a giant in the cartoon world
Almost every day I would look forward to getting a message from Facebook letting me know a new cartoon was out by Glenn Foden. You see, I love cartoons. Every Sunday — as a kid — I looked forward to grabbing the Sunday Funnies from my grandma and reading through them while watching Sunday morning cartoons. As an adult I followed many cartoonists, Chuck Asay, Cox and Forkum, Richard Ramirez, Eric Allie, Lisa Benson, Gary Varvel, etc. I considered Foden one of the biggies. I even for a very long time had my own “Sunday Funnies,” where I would collect many of the weeks cartoons or humorous pics and post them on my site. Glenn was ALWAYS a part of this early A.M. part of my life as his was one of the first pages I would visit… maybe sneaking in his afternoon Sunday upload or saving it till the next week..
Once in a while he would get a left leaning individual noting how he disliked his cartoons… often times he would thumbs up the comment. I just thought to myself this had two affects: (a) it probably drove the person bonkers, and (b) it showed Glenn’s love of the 1st Amendment. You see, one can tell how a man thinks when he draws a single frame picturing his mind’s view on a complicated issue. The cartoonist shares his complete view in one picture that others (like myself) might take paragraphs to explain.
I used his cartoons in a few things on my site or in my YouTube uploads. The most recent cartoon was used in my upload of Larry Elder talking about the bias of media, giving the example of Chevy Chase:
Glenn mentioned this after I posted the video on his timeline:
- Thanks, Sean. At one time media would at least pretend to be offended when accused of bias. Now they just smile, shrug their shoulders and say, “So what?”
In a post of mine that grows as more progressive-power-hungry legislators make clear their goals, I used a recent cartoon of Glenn’s to accompany an update to the post:
And in true Glenn Foden fashion, he commented on the post:
- Green shirts have replaced the brown. Well done, sir!
He had a way of acknowledging those of us who were fans of his talent. Others would even post their own personal cartoons on Glenn’s Facebook to get what his thoughts on it were. He was always gracious and uplifting to the person… always showing grace and care to those starting down the path of their own talents.
I never interacted with his family, but I know he will be missed. Just these simple interactions and ability to pear into his mind, frame-by-frame allowed me to know that he will leave a hole in peoples lives, but overflow it with memories of the man he was. I hope and pray he loved the Lord and I will actually get to meet him in the life originally meant for us by our Creator.
I pray that in these rough weeks and months ahead for the longing of the kinds words of a father, husband, uncle, brother, friend, and author of a legend in the cartoonist world… that comfort and solace will be found in faith and relationships garnered though Glenn’s life.
Glenn, I never met you but I felt like I knew you. Thank you for sharing yourself with those beyond your family and friends,
Sean G
A Fellow Cartoonist Memorial
Scotland is Requiring Air-Soft Rifles Be Registered
Colion Noir predicted the future when he imagined a world in which air rifles are highly regulated. Now the government of Scotland is requiring this very measure of its citizens.
The Party of the People ~ Rubbish
Via The Blaze and Dr. Matthew Parks, Assistant Professor of Politics at The King’s College in New York City:
Dr. Parks pointed out some of the problems with the Democrats’ quirky election anomaly: “Even before we get to the convention, the superdelegates have a disproportionate influence in the overall trajectory of the race,” he said.
“Ironically, the Democratic Party have an undemocratic consequence in the overall choice.”
Watch Dr. Parks break down the superdelegate:
- The term superdelegate is used to describe delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are not elected by primary voters but automatically given a voice in the presidential nomination process because of their position in the party.
Harvard Students Debate “White Self-Genocide”
(Libertarian Republican h/t) Harvard University has again broke into the news with the advocacy of white self-genocide. The first time, it was something of a joke, although based on an actual professor who says things such as ”treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” This time, the news story concerns a debate in which a participant argues that white people should commit suicide, and it appears the story is true.
Video Description
Cambridge, Mass. – White lives do not matter, according to a student debater/activist from the University of West Georgia. Miguel Feliciano, along with fellow West Georgia student Damiyr Davis, reportedly participated in a recent debate with other students at Harvard University. During an exchange with their opponents, Feliciano suggested that white people should kill themselves because of their “white privilege.” — “White life is wrong,” [….] “Our argument is that we should never affirm white life. White life is based off black subjugation.” When a white debater asked Feliciano whether he should commit suicide, Feliciano said “I don’t see why not, it’s ethical.”
When the white debater suggested that it might be better to remain alive and fight the social forces that promote “white privilege,” Feliciano rejects the notion. “Struggling against the structure means putting yourself on the line, putting your body on the line, do it. Affirmative suicide, that’s cool, it’s one little step in the right direction,” Feliciano said. Ironically, the debate topic was supposed to be about renewable energy. “The black debaters simply ‘chose’ to point out their opponents’ skin color and begin advocating genocide,” reported InvestmentWatchdogBlog.com. “They expressly stated that these were their ‘sincere beliefs,’ not just an argument to win a debate.”
Feliciano and Davis are not some anonymous student crackpots posing as serious debaters. They form a respected two-person debate team that took second place at the 2013 Cross-Examination Debate Association Nationals. Feliciano also acts as an instructor at the Eddie Conway Liberation Institute, an annual debate camp at Coppin State University that reportedly instructs high school students on debate strategy and radical thought. The institute is named after former Black Panther Party member Eddie Conway, who was convicted and imprisoned for 44 years for his involvement with the 1970 murder of a Baltimore police officer.
Caller Asks Rush Limbaugh if Cruz Can Still Win
Via the Blaze:
- Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program Friday that he still believes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) can defeat Donald Trump and secure the Republican nomination. The conservative talk show host offered his thoughts after a listener called in to ask. “My question is: Do you think that Cruz still has an honest chance to win?” the caller asked, according to an online transcript.
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Round-Up (Updated)
Newest discover of soft-dinosaur bones found (click to enlarge):
Via Creation.com:
The Liscomb bonebed is in the Prince Creek Formation in northern Alaska. A report by a team of scientists who’ve been excavating in this area detailed what they claim is a new type of hadrosaur (duck-billed dinosaur), which they named Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis. It was called “saurolophine”, meaning a member of the Saurolophine subfamily that includes the genus Saurolophus. The Associated Press immediately published an online article about the paper.1 but curiously, a very important detail was omitted: the bones are not fossilized!
Here is an excerpt from the original paper:
- When the scientists say that the bones are “typically … unpermineralized,” what they mean is that we are not dealing with fossils, but comparatively ‘fresh’ dinosaur bones. The hadrosaurid remains are almost entirely disarticulated, show little evidence of weathering, predation, or trampling, and are typically uncrushed and unpermineralized (Fiorillo et al. 2010; Gangloff and Fiorillo 2010).
Actually, soft bones coming from these areas in Alaska are nothing new… but since the famous T-Rex find, it has become kosher to admit them. See more in my main post on this topic, here.
This is an article from the most recent Creation Matters ([2015] Vol 20, Num 6)… I wanted to share it here as it is short and concise. I included videos where I could whereas the article [obviously] just has printed links:
…without excuse!
Soft tissue has been found in numerous dinosaur fossils. Realistically, this tissue should have decayed long before these fossils were discovered. More significant than this, many tissue specimens have been found to contain measurable radiocarbon (carbon-14), giving ages of tens of thousands of years. This is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, because the rocks in which these fossils have been found are typically said to be at least 65 million years in age. Given the half-life of radioactive carbon, fossils of such great age should be depleted of all traces of carbon-14.
Evolutionary theory thus faces a serious challenge. As might be expected, the responses by the evolutionists to these findings have been swift and heated.
The controversy
In 2006, Mary Schweitzer reported her discovery of still-flexible soft tissue from a reputedly 68-million-year-old T. rex (Schweitzer et al., 2006). Some of the major television networks reported on this discovery in depth, featuring spectacular video recordings, taken through microscopes, showing the structures in vivid color. A sampling of these dramatic video clips taken from a few of these shows is listed below. Space only permits us to briefly describe what the clips reveal.
(Above video) Produced by “60 Minutes,” the TV news program: News correspondent Leslie Stahl interviews Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer about their soft-tissue findings. This clip shows very impressive video microscopic views of the tissues.
(Above video) Produced by Nova, a television science program sponsored by PBS. the Public Broadcasting Service: News correspondent Peter Standring interviews a number of paleontologists about dinosaur soft tissue. and provides much insight into what has been found.
(Above video) Produced by cable TV network MSNBC: This is an interview with Schweitzer, a week after her 2006 announcement of finding the dinosaur soft tissue. When asked if it was amazing to find soft tissue in a fossil this old, she responded. “It is very amazing. It is utterly shocking, actually, because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how tissues and cells degrade…A lot of our science doesn’t allow for this.”
In recognition of the significance that fossil soft tissue has on the creation-evolution controversy, the Creation Research Society devoted the entire contents of the Spring, 2015 issue of its peer-reviewed journal, CRS Quarterly, to the investigation of this topic. In addition to detailed reports about the CRS’s own WINO research with actual soft dinosaur tissue (Armitage. 2015: Anderson, 2015), this issue presents a thorough discussion of the current arguments for and against this being young, soft tissue.
The Quarterly also contains an excellent article reviewing the current state of radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones and other materials that are alleged to be millions of years old (Thomas and Nelson, 2015). The specimens cited in this article, which included seven dinosaur samples, dated from about 18,000 to 50,000 radiocarbon years.
(Click to enlarge ~ see more HERE)
Censorship
At an international geophysics conference held in Singapore in 2012, the Paleochronol-ogy Group, an independent, creation-friendly organization, presented their results of carbon-14 dating for several dinosaur specimens. Estimated ages were 22,000 to 39,000 years. Following the conference, the program chairman, in a letter to the researchers, dismissed their results as “obviously an error,” and rescinded the abstract from the conference proceedings. A copy of the letter is reproduced by Fischer (2015).
An article published in Discovery Magazine in 2006 clearly illustrates the hostility shown by evolutionists in response to Schweitzer’s discovery (Yeoman, 2006):
‘The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur,’ she [Schweitzer] wrote in a 1997 paper…That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Schweitzer et al., 1997], sparked a small flurry of headlines… Opponents say, ‘I just don’t believe it.’ She was having a hard time publishing in journals.
Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years. He says the cellular material Schweitzer found must be contamination from outside sources … radiation would have degraded its body. Bada says: “Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You’ve got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules.
She [Schweitzer] acknowledged that one reviewer told her, ‘he didn’t care what the data said; he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible.’ I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’
The last paragraph of the above quotations was actually removed from the online version of the Discover article. It should be noted that while Schweitzer believes that the soft tissue findings are real, she does not accept the young-age implications.
What it all means
The evidence we have examined points to one conclusion: these tissues are of very recent origin, not one of 65 or more million years. One advantage of all of the hostility by the evolutionists is that despite an intense effort to debunk the findings, they have not been successful at any point. As a result, it is clearer than ever that the tissues are truly of recent origin.
The main argument against these findings at one point was that the soft tissue was comprised of “bacterial slime (biofilm).” That has been shown not to be the case because, among other things, the tissues contain animal collagen, which differs from a collagen-like protein formed by bacteria (Anderson, 2015). More recent efforts to question the data have centered on mechanisms to preserve the tissue for millions of years, including smectite adhesion, apatite sequestration, and iron adhesion, all of which have been shown to be inadequate. The interested reader is referred to the CRS Quarterly special iDINO issue mentioned earlier (see especially Thomas, 2015). Likewise, efforts to debunk the carbon-14 dating results have been unsuccessful (Thomas and Nelson, 2015).
After a while, continuing to deny the obvious becomes futile. The Bible speaks in 2 Peter 3 of mockers who are willfully ignorant of the evidence God has provided concerning the testimony of the great flood in the days of Noah. In Romans 1:18-20, the Bible talks about those who are without excuse for suppressing the truth that the creation reveals a living, personal God. As one considers these Biblical passages, it is amazing how accurately they describe the response of today’s mockers concerning the testimony of dinosaur soft tissue.
References
CRSQ = Creation Research Society Quarterly
Note: All “You Tube” videos were tested and active on November 29, 2015.
Anderson, K 2015. Dinosaur tissue or bacterial bio-films. CRSQ 51(4):259-267.
Armitage, M. 2015. Soft bone material from a brow hom of a Triceratops horridus from Hell Creek Formation, Montana. CRSQ 51(4):248-258.
Fischer, J. 2015. Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old. Published by author. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Schweitzer, M.H., M. Marshall, K. Carron, et al.1997. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecu-lar bone, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 94:62916296. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full.pdf
Schweitzer, M.H., J.L. Wittmeyer, and J.R. Homer. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. B 274:183197. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3705. Published online 31 October 2006.
Smith, C. 2014. Dinosaur soft tissue. Creation.com. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue (See C. Wieland’s response to the fifth of the readers’ comments.)
Thomas, B. 2015. Original biomaterials in fossils. CRSQ 51(4):234-247.
Thomas, B. and V. Nelson. 2015. Radiocarbon in dinosaur and other fossils. CRSQ 51(4):299311.
Yeoman, B. 2006. Schweitzer’s dangerous discovery. Discover, April 27, 2006. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna
Pseudogenes Predicted To Fail by Creationists (Updated w/Appendix)
I have been debating this topic (creation vs. evolution) since Discover first opened up there Internet Site. An atheistic evolutionist, Gene90, and I would go rounds in the late 90’s on many of these topics. One of the topics that often came up as an evidence for evolution was JunkDNA, or, pseudogenes. They would argue, much like the vestigial organ argument, that there were upwards of 90% of the DNA that was vestigial, or useless. I would argue that the supposed vestigial organs were in fact useful, and the argument for JunkDNA was an argument from silence… much like the 180 vestigial organ list of the late 1800’s was. An argument — that upon elucidation — shed light on these many “vestigial” natures showing that in fact they had uses to our bodies. (My response to the vestigial organ argument follows this story.) Here again, the Design argument holds its place among the predictive powers that true science affords. This being said, philosophical naturalists reject this predictive power — NOT because it is scientifically unsound, but because an a priori understanding of these positions undermines their true application of science to their understanding of the natural world.
I was again recently in a debate on this topic thanks to some goofball on YouTube (beating a dead horse… I do this from time-to-time to get-to-know a subject well). I posted some of my responses to that elongated debate here: “The Vitamin-C Pseudogene Argument Crumbles Slowly.” (Also see especially: Pseudogenes and the Origin of Humanity: A Response to the Venema Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model) Which brings me to this post. Over at Debunking Atheists, there is an ICR update reproduced in part below. Take note that we, including myself in this grouping as an armchair apologist, have been saying this since the 90’s.
False Gene Discovery Confirms Creation Prediction, by Brian Thomas, M.S.
…Early analyses of all that “junk” revealed that it was not random, and later studies showed patterns in the non-gene-coding DNA, although at the time there were no known functions for them.1
A new study published in Nature disclosed the discovery of a totally new mechanism for gene regulation that uses pseudogenes.2 These look very similar to actual genes, but contain enough differences that they could not be used to properly code for proteins. For example, they often have a genetic “stop sign” buried in the middle of the sequence instead of at the end, where the coding gene has it.
The word pseudogene means “false gene.” They were named this because they were considered to be broken, useless copies of real genes that harbored coding errors from a long evolutionary history of genetic mistakes. But what if pseudogenes had those coding differences not because they were broken-down versions of the real genes, but because they were purposefully designed with specific similarities to help regulate their corresponding genes?
The researchers found exactly that in two gene-pseudogene systems. They documented direct evidence that the pseudogene PTENP1 “can regulate cellular levels of [its corresponding gene] PTEN and exert a growth-suppressive role.”2
Not only is the pseudogene PTENP1 not useless, it has two previously unknown functions. PTENP1 acts as a decoy to attract smaller regulatory molecules. When these small molecules attach to PTENP1 instead of PTEN, the PTEN gene becomes more accessible and is translated into protein more often.
The gene and its pseudogene also appear to exist in a balancing act that affects each other’s expression levels. This relationship was further established by observing that cells without the PTENP1 pseudogene are cancerous. Other diseases, like Cowden’s disease and Bannayan-Zonana syndrome, are associated with poorly regulated PTEN gene expression.3
The researchers suspected that this regulation scheme was not limited to just one pseudogene-gene system and that it might well be found throughout the living world. Sure enough, they found the same regulatory balances in the gene KRAS and its pseudogene KRAS1P.
So, a cell can regulate the output of genes and their protein products in “intricately dynamic” networks2 because of formerly designated “junk” DNA like transposons4 and pseudogenes. Since no networks–especially not those that provide essential regulatory functions–are seen arising from any natural process, these must have arisen from an intelligent and benevolent source outside of nature.
Based on the idea that both genes and non-gene DNA were produced by a Creator, rather than the laws of physics, creation scientist John Woodmorappe predicted in 2003 that pseudogenes would be discovered to play an important regulatory role in cells.5 Science is now showing that to be accurate.
References
1. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 447 (7146): 799-816.
2. Poliseno, L. et al. 2010. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology. Nature. 465 (7301): 1033-1038.
3. Keim, B. New Form of Gene Regulation Hints at Hidden Dimension of DNA. Wired Science. Posted on wired.com June 24, 2010, accessed June 29, 2010.
4. Thomas, B. Evolution’s Best Argument Has Become Its Worst Nightmare. Acts & Facts. 39 (3): 16-17.
5. Woodmorappe, J. 2003. Pseudogene function: regulation of gene expression. TJ. 17 (1): 47-52.
APPENDIX
(Above graphic via Creation Magazine, Vol. 38 {No.2 – 2016} — click to enlarge)
- “There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure.” William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149.
- “For at least 2,000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of… the thymus gland…. Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. In the last few years, however,… men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases…. Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids may also figure in the antibody responses.” – The Useless Gland that Guards Our Health, in Reader’s Digest, November 1966, pp. 229, 235.
- “The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” – 2Henry L. Bockus, M.D., Gastroenterology, 2:1134-1148 (chapter The Appendix, by Gordon McHardy), [W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania, 1976.]
- “The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.” — Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, p. 916, [Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995]
What Does It Do?
The appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
- IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
- IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream.
The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue) system. The lymphoid follicles develop in the appendix at around two weeks after birth, which is the time when the large bowel begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria. It is likely that its major function peaks in this neonatal period.
Dr. Kawanishi,[1] showed that human lymphoid cells in the appendix are immunologically functional as T helper cells and antibody-producing B cells, making IgA molecules in response to immunological challenges. He noted that:
- “The human appendix, long considered only an accessory rudimentary organ, could posses a similar antigen uptake role prior to replacement by fibrosed tissue after repeated subclinical infections, or at least in early childhood when it is most prominent.”[2]
The appendix is also rich in argentaffin cells, which can be identified with the use of silver salt staining. The function of these cells has long been obscure, but the evidence suggests that they may be involved with endocrine gland function.[3] Many sources (encyclopedias, textbooks, etc.) still erroneously state that the appendix is useless. Interestingly, the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia states in one place: that “In humans the cecum and appendix have no important function,” and in another place that “the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated.”
Dr. Howard R. Bierman… studied several hundred patients with leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon and cancer of the ovaries. He found that 84% [of his sample] had [their] appendix removed…. In a control group without cancer, only 25% had it removed.[4]
Bierman himself had concluded that the appendix may be an immunological organ whose premature removal during its functional period permits leukemia and other related forms of cancer to begin their development.[5] Bierman and his associates realized that the lymphoid tissue located on the walls of the appendix may secrete antibodies which protect the body against various viral agents.
While high school and college textbooks today will mention the appendix as vestigial, specialists in their field have for many years stated the necessity of the appendix as useful.
- “There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure.”[6]
- “For at least 2,000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of… the thymus gland…. Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. In the last few years, however,… men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases…. Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids may also figure in the antibody responses.”[7]
- “The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.”[8]
- “The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.”[9]
The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue) system. The lymphoid follicles develop in the appendix at around two weeks after birth, which is the time when the large bowel begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria. It is likely that its major function peaks in this neonatal period.
As Dr. Peter Faletra (Ph.D.), who is Senior Science Advisor Office of Science Department of Energy, says in response to a question on an online question-and-answer service for K-12 teachers run by the Argonne National Laboratories:
“As a histologist I see no reason to consider the v. appendix as having no function since it contains numerous lymphoid follicles that produce functional lymphocytes and a rich blood supply to communicate them. The general idea of vestigial organs is to me a measure of ignorance, arrogance and lack of imagination. Ignorance in that we label it as such because we do not know its function; arrogance in that we declare it of no value since we can see none; and lacking in imagination in so far as when we cannot see its function cannot imagine one. I call your attention to that other ‘vestigial organ’ the thymus without which, in early life, we would produce a severely compromised cell-mediated immune system as the ‘nude’ mouse and numerous thymectomized mammalian studies have shown. Although some general reference books still list the v. appendix as ‘vestigial’ most immunologists (I included) would strongly disagree!”[10] (emphises added)
Footnotes
[1] H. Kawanishi, “Immunocompetence of Normal Appendiceal Lymphoid cells: in vitro studies,” Immunology, 60(1) (1987), pp. 19-28.
[2] Ibid., p. 19.
[3] Marti-Ibanez (editor), “Tuber of Life,” M. D. Magazine (1970) #14, p. 240; William J. Banks, Applied Veterinary Histology (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore: 1981), p. 390.
[4] Richard G. Culp, Remember thy Creator (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,; MI: 1975).
[5] Howard R. Bierman, “Human Appendix and Neoplasia,” Cancer 21 (1) (1968), pp. 109-118.
[6] William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149.
[7] “The Useless Gland that Guards Our Health,” in Reader’s Digest, November (1966), pp. 229, 235.
[8] Henry L. Bockus, Gastroenterology, 2:1134-1148 [chapter The Appendix, by Gordon McHardy], (W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania: 1976).
[9] Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1995), p. 916
[10] From the site Newton, which is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators. Argonne National Laboratory, Division of Educational Programs, Harold Myron, Ph.D., Division Director. Quote: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00225.htm Home page: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/
Mass Shooting and Other Gun Myths!
Below are some updated videos inserted into this older post… the most recent being Steven Crowder’s rebuttal of VOX’s anti-gun propaganda video:
- (Louder with Crowder) Misrepresenting numbers, massaging “facts,” are tactics used by leftists daily. Misrepresentation is the secret ingredient in their half-caf soy latte. Leftists always have a pre-determined outcome in mind. In Vox’s case (like all leftists), TAINT GUN OWNERSHIP. Make gun owners look like out of control whack jobs with no hearts.
Also, this IS a good definition via the FBI:
✦ An FBI crime classification report from 2005 identifies an individual as a mass murderer if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. SO, following VOX’s own criteria WITH this definition to help set boundaries… we are not even close to having one “every-other-month.”
This Uber driver just stopped a mass shooting (ehem, in Chicago) with his concealed weapon (for which he had a permit), via Breitbart:
On Friday, an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit thwarted an attempted mass shooting by pulling his own weapon and shooting a gunman who had opened fire in Chicago’s Logan Square.
Illinois Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn verified that the driver “had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others.”
According to the Chicago Tribune, the driver was watching “a group of people” walk in front of his car on North Milwaukee Avenue just before midnight when 22-year-old Everardo Custodio allegedly “began firing into the crowd.” The Uber driver pulled his own gun and “fired six shots at Custodio,” wounding him in “the shin, thigh, and lower back.”
The attempted mass shooting ended with no one other Custodio injured….
In his June 18, 2015, remarks from the White House, Obama said, “Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.” (Politifact)
(Obama’s most recent remarks are in the video, above/right.)
Obama, as usual, tries to rewrite history by his word. Here Fox lays out some of the stats in regard to this statement of “faith.”
….In the November attacks, 129 people were killed and 352 were injured. In just 2015, France suffered more casualties – killings and injuries – from mass public shootings than the U.S. has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424). This number includes the San Bernandino massacre on Wednesday.
Obama also overlooks Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik used a gun to kill 67 people and wound 110 others. Still others were killed by bombs that Breivik detonated. Of the four worst K-12 school shootings, three have occurred in Europe. Germany had two of these — one in 2002 at Erfut and another in 2009 at Winnenden, with a total death toll of 34.
Obama isn’t correct even if he meant the frequency of fatalities or attacks. Many European countries actually have higher rates of death from public shootings that resulted in four or more murders. It’s simply a matter of adjusting for America’s much larger population.
Let’s look at mass public shootings from 2009 to the middle of June this year. To compare fairly with American shootings, I excluded attacks that might be better classified as struggles over sovereignty. For instance, I did not count the 22 people killed in the Macedonian town of Kumanovo last month.
Norway had the highest annual death rate, with 2 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Macedonia had a rate of 0.38, Serbia 0.28, Slovakia 0.20, Finland 0.14, Belgium 0.14, and the Czech Republic 0.13. The US comes in No. 8 with 0.095 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Austria and Switzerland are close behind.
In terms of the frequency of attacks, the United States ranks ninth, with 0.09 attacks per million people. Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and the Czech Republic all had higher rates.
There are two other studies on these questions that have gotten a fair amount of attention.
One, by State University of New York-Oswego public justice professor Jaclyn Schildkraut and Texas State University researcher H. Jaymi Elsass, who look at shootings across countries, has left out a large number of shootings in other countries.
Yet, despite the extensive news coverage their study has received, they miss a lot of cases. For example, in France, they miss three mass public shootings:
- Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.
- Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
- Toulouse, France, March 19, 2012, Mohammed Merah killed four people (the killer also killed people in Montauban, France).
Other cases are missed in such countries as Austria, Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Italy, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland and Slovakia.
It takes a lot of time and effort to find all the cases, but if you get all the attacks in the U.S. and miss those in other countries, it makes the U.S. look a lot worse…
Crowder likewise showed that the “Gun Show Loophole” exists only in the leftists mind:
Here is a great video by Encounter Books:
From the video description:
The right to keep and bear arms has always been central to the American identity. The American Revolution was sparked by British attempts to confiscate guns. After the Civil War, America changed the Constitution to defeat America’s first gun control organization, the Ku Klux Klan. When Hitler and Stalin demonstrated how gun registration paves the way for gun confiscation which paves the way for genocide, Americans resolved to make sure it never happens here.
Gun control is not an issue of left vs. right, or urban vs. rural. Liberal icons such as Hubert Humphrey and Eleanor Roosevelt recognized the right to arms as fundamental to preventing large-scale tyranny by criminal governments, and small-scale tyranny by ordinary criminals. Barack Obama’s gun control program is founded on disinformation, and is a direct assault on the Constitution.
To learn more read The Truth about Gun Control, by David B. Kopel.
BTW ~ even Bernie Sander’s understands the goal of the left:
In the aftermath of more mass shootings, Bill Whittle tackles gun control, rebutting progressives call for stricter measures.
Government: Is it Ever Big Enough?
Can the government ever be too big? How much spending is enough spending? And if there can be too much spending, where is that point? William Voegeli, Senior Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, explores these complex questions and offers some clear answers.
Radical Leftists Shutting Down Free Speech (Rebel Pundit)
Here is the appearance of the Rebel Pundit guys on Hannity (Gateway Pundit h/t):
- Tonight Andrew and Jeremy went on Hannity to describe the scene. It’s important to remember that this violence did not start with Trump. The left has been promoting violence against their opposition and the American public for decades.
Here is the entire video from The Rebel Pundit: