Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut."Purpose," huh? Nobody here but us teleologists.
That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.
06 October 2007
To Bedevil Naive Darwinists?
Purpose of appendix believed found (AP, 10/6/07)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Not just teleological. Highly moral, too. Seems that little trusty sidekick only produces and protects "good" germs.
Our friend, the apprendix.
Twelve hours and not even a nibble, aside from Peter. The Duckians must be evolving into some more disciplined species, and at a fantastically rapid rate.
I don't know about other putative commenters, but I'm rather awed by words like teleologist.
erp:
David is great at big words, but sometimes not so good at shorthand.
As usual, I should have indicated that I'm kidding. I like big words too, especially ones I haven't heard before.
This short article is ridiculous. No different from the breathless alerts about Brad and Big Lips or someone named Lohan who is out of rehab...
C'mon, Skipper, I even let them off the hook for "it produces ... good germs."
erp:
David is one of the smartest people I have ever met (which, of course, you could not possibly have known).
Consequently, I am also kidding.
I know full well he is not above the occasional, or even more frequent, chain yank.
You'd think a jet pilot would get out more ...
(In fact, I'm blushing.)
Skip, I know, I've been a long time fan. In fact, it was a comment over at the bros about missing him that sent me to the PJA. Another commenter gave me this blog address.
I wonder if oj misses you all. Comments have been very mild and trolls have been virtually invisible. They show up a couple of times and then it's sayonara.
erp:
I wonder if oj misses you all. Comments have been very mild and trolls have been virtually invisible.
I doubt it.
The reason the comments have been mild is that OJ prefers an echo chamber.
He relentlessly deletes nearly all comments that fail to toe his line.
Since I am often being completely out of phase with eastern US time, I used to see posts that showed up, then later disappeared.
Then I noticed that didn't happen anymore, leading me to suspect the moderation had become so heavy that posts only appeared after his approval.
Making working up the effort to click on the BJ link very difficult.
I can confirm that. Several times I couldn't resist and posted some riposte. It would be deleted within the day.
On the other hand, Lout Gots and Raoul Ortega seem to still get away with being rather contrary.
A day or two ago I made a pun about a rather mild comment only to go back find the comment missing. Without the provocative comments, it's not nearly as much fun. I like Lou and Raoul, but they can't hold up the honor of the comment all by themselves.
In 4+ years, I think I had ONE comment deleted at BJB. What does it take to get erased - call OJ a knucklehead (or worse)?
But I had to learn the finer points of commenting there - mainly to try to be pithier than the host. Not easy.
erp - you are right. The comments have been awfully thin lately. It might pick up once the primaries are upon us, but I don't think so.
I must say, I like seeing the word 'teleology' in a post. Even in jest, a good move.
The comment process over at the bros is so erratic, I don't know if some innocuous comment was deleted or just never made it through.
Probably a minority opinion, but I find baseball boooring.
jim hamlen wrote: "I think I had ONE comment deleted at BJB..."
That's one too many, isn't it?
jim hamlen also wrote: "The comments have been awfully thin lately."
That'd be what happens when the blogger deletes comments. Who wants to put in the effort to comment just to have one's comments deleted?
What does anyone think about oj chairing Thompson's campaign in Hanover? They seem like odd bedfellows.
There are going to be lots of odd pairings in the GOP. Just this week, a few high-profile evangelical Baptists endorsed Mitt. I wonder if Dobson will, because he has no use for Rudy and has said some withering things about Fred, too.
Fred is in a strange place - everyone wants him to be Reagan, but he isn't. Even Reagan in January 1980 wasn't Reagan as we know him today. The country-club Republicans despised (and mocked) him almost as much as the Dems did. Bush 41 was their guy, and the media built John Anderson up and up and up, even though he had no constituency within the party (kind of like Chuck Hagel, except Anderson was not a fool).
OJ has consistently said McCain would be the nominee (which looks much better now than 4 months ago). However, I don't believe Rudy will dry up (as OJ always writes). Perhaps backing Fred is OJ's way of "stopping" Rudy, because if he wins NH, a 2nd in SC and then firsts in FL and/or MI, he will be impossible to overcome. But Fred seems to be just a plodder right now.
I didn't know that about OJ. It is interesting. Of course, he also worked for a Democrat NJ gubernatorial candidate.
After all the complaining he's done about the paleos and libertarians not shutting up and just voting for the party, I'm surprised he hasn't gotten more criticism for saying that he'd support Hillary over Rudy.
Post a Comment