Click These

how to grow indoor cannabis Nikola Tesla Secret
Domain Registrations from just $3.98/Year $2.95 .Com at!

Do Visit!

Follow Me

Nikola Tesla Secret

Our Children Now Terrorists, The Ultimate Betrayal by the Federal Government, Let’s Call It Patriotism



White House Counterterror Chief: “Confrontational” Children Could be Terrorists

White House counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco gave a speech this week in which she urged parents to watch their children for signs of “confrontational” behavior which could be an indication of them becoming terrorists.

During the speech at at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on Tuesday night, Monaco, who replaced John Brennan last year in overseeing the executive branch’s homeland-security activities, said that parents need to be suspicious of “sudden personality changes in their children at home.”

“What kinds of behaviors are we talking about?” she asked. “For the most part, they’re not related directly to plotting attacks. They’re more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational.”

Monaco lamented the fact that, “The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals,” encouraging parents to act as watchdogs to detect radicalization in line with President Obama’s goal of combating homegrown extremism.

Over the last decade, the federal government has broadened its definition of what constitutes potential terrorism to such a degree that the term has lost all meaning and is clearly being used as a political tool to demonize adversarial political activism.

Indeed, only yesterday Senator Harry Reid caused outrage when he labeled supporters of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists”.

Although such tactics pre-date the 2009 release of the MIAC report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center document was perhaps the most shocking in that it characterized a whole swathe of conservative Americans as domestic extremists, including Ron Paul supporters, people who own gold and people who display political bumper stickers.

A Homeland Security study leaked in 2012 upped the ante even further, demonizing Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Lisa Monaco’s speech and the federal government’s track record in assailing both banal behavior and political activism as potential “terrorism” serves as a reminder that the war on terror has now been focused inwardly against innocent Americans, making it all the more harder to detect actual terrorists.

Much more with videos and live links will be found at D.C. Clothesline.




Labeling It’s Own Citizens as Domestic Terrorists – The Ultimate Betrayal by the Federal Government

When a young man or woman joins the United States military, one of the first things they do before even being shipped off to boot camp is take the loyalty oath. “I (state your name) do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” The oath of enlistment goes on to say that the service member will follow orders of the president and the officers appointed over them per the regulations of the uniformed code of military justice. Most service members, at least I hope anyway, understand that there are illegal orders, and any order that goes against the Constitution is, in fact, an illegal order.

This oath means something to military personnel because most of us joined to defend the rights and liberties of all Americans, even those that don’t share our views. Sadly, many people have been inundated with the belief that the Constitution is an oppressive document that stands in the way of government creating the perfect paradise. In fact, in a report called Rightwing extremism: Current economic and political climate fueling resurgence in radicalization and recruitment the government calls anyone who refers to the Constitution and the limits of government power a domestic terrorist. Anyone who owns a gun is a terrorist, anyone who didn’t vote for Obama is a racist terrorist and anyone who is buying more than seven days of food at a time is now even referred to as a potential terrorist. Veterans are potential terrorists, probably because the government fears them finding out how they have been used, abused and lied to. Also, those who hold anti-abortion views are domestic terrorists.

Many of you may be wondering what the significance of all of this is. Harry Reid just referred to the Bundy ranch protesters as domestic terrorists and claimed that he was told a special task force is being set up to “deal with them.” A task force, mind you that is not loyal to the U.S. Constitution, but has likely been beaten down with the same lies and propaganda that is published in that fallacious report.

Read all of this HERE.




Let’s Call It Patriotism

A government unloosed from its authorizing document, in open revolt against the principles laid out and defined therein, with the will, intent and ability to execute citizens for trivial offenses, basically parking tickets (oops, forgot to feed the meter on the cattle) is, by definition, a domestic terrorist. The politicians and agents involved in such criminal activity as theft of property (water rights in U.S. v Hage  a similar, but much more egregious case than the issue with Cliven Bundy) involving the BLM, determined by the judge to be involved in a criminal conspiracy is the definition of domestic terrorists.

Mr. Reid, those who stand against such criminal acts are called patriots.

To engage in criminal activity with the threat of death and kidnapping (incarceration) to U.S. citizens is domestic terrorism.

But, all of that is really a sideshow. In the main tent is the fact that this government have brutalized its citizens so often, so willingly that word is out, public sentiment is changing. Investor’s Business Daily is pointing out the obvious, but at least they are pointing.

In the Constitution, there is no provision for the United States to own any land that is not directly associated with conducting the business of government and provision for military bases and arsenals. There is no provision for national parks, land management, national forests, those are all the legacy of the first round of progressives to invade the halls of government with ill intent to the citizens.

The coming hot war was instigated by the government over one hundred years ago, but only recently, with the total corruption of the government, with politicians in violation of their oaths: stealing lands; stealing water rights; stealing funds; as they have grown more desperate and more despotic as the inevitable bankruptcy of the federal government looms. They have cast off the pretense. The president operates in total disregard for the wishes of the people and the Constitution, refuses to enforce borders, invites criminals into the nation in contravention of Section 8, Clause 4, where it states: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States. To enforce rules of naturalization on some immigrants and not on others violates the “uniform rule” requirement.

Read it all HERE.




Left-Wing Muslim Group CAIR Says Sharia Law Is Compatible With Democracy

Shariah is a primitive, backwards system of law usually championed by illiterate savages. It encourages rape, makes women into property and drags a society screaming back into the dark ages. No intelligent person who means well could possibly believe that Shariah is compatible with a free and democratic society. Which brings us to CAIR.

[B]ut, as you may have noticed, the ideals, the principles behind our expression of democracy do offer us a guide to the target of our thoughts tonight.

Two documents give us a sense of the recipe:

The Declaration of Independence asserts that the right of the people “to alter or to abolish their government” must remain intact and the people must have the freedom to lay government’s “foundation on such principles” and organize “its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Constitution adds additional thoughts: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.””

These are the goals of the democracy our founders created. These are the ideals, the recipe.

Let me remind you of the two main goals and six main principles of sharia. The two goals are to bring good to humanity, and to repel harm from humanity.

All religious rules must be in line with these six principles of sharia:
The right to the protection of life.
The right to the protection of family.
The right to the protection of education (intellect).
The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
The right to the protection of human dignity.
The right to the protection of religion.
I hope you are beginning to hear what I concluded long ago — that the similarities between Islamic sharia ideals and western democratic ideals are fairly obvious. [...]
So, to my understanding, our original topic tonight has the effect of slicing us into two different camps. “Is sharia (them) compatible with democracy (us)?”
I am pretty sure, hearing that topic, most of you did not come here expecting an American history lesson. However, I pray that what I have said tonight brings you to share my conviction that we are, in fact, allies.
Islam and American democracy may disagree on some things. However, just as best friends often disagree without it hurting their relations we too can be adults and debate differences while partnering on ideals. Frankly, those differences are relatively minor. Violent extremists like al-Qaeda may trying to convince you otherwise, but they are everyone’s enemy.
I also pray that we can now start our conversation from a healthy place — not one of “us vs. them,” but of how do we work together to establish our shared ideals of justice.

This is exactly the sort of thing that gets people frustrated with “moderate Muslims.” They KNOW this isn’t true and if they wanted to live in a nation with Shariah law, they’d be there now. Instead, they sit by silently while terrorist sympathizing dirtbags like CAIR claim to represent them and champion primeval stupidity like Shariah in their names.

There are a lot of good, patriotic Muslims in this country. We need you to stand up, speak out and fight back against groups like CAIR.

From Joe for America.


liberals and teenagers


What’s wrong with the Right

This article hits the nail on the head: the Right is its own worst enemy. It has allowed the Left to put it on the defensive to such a degree that whenever establishment conservatives take a stand against the Left, such as in this case defending Ayaan Hirsi Ali against the Hamas-linked CAIR smear campaign that got her honorary degree rescinded by Brandeis, they believe that they have to give their stand legitimacy by denouncing someone else the Left hates. The idea is that they will establish their bona fides by acquiescing to the Leftist character assassination of one person, thereby showing that they’re really good guys after all, not “racists” or “bigots,” and so therefore the Left should go easy on them when they come out against them regarding a different person or issue.

This triangulation tactic is increasingly common. The craven and self-serving British professional moderate Muslim Maajid Nawaz does the same thing when he comes out against Islamic jihad terrorists while denouncing Pamela Geller and me for “Islamophobia”: he thinks that he saves himself from charges of “Islamophobia” himself by joining in on the smear campaign against us (he doesn’t). The anti-Semitic Communist ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie and the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain does the same thing, trying to buy themselves a spurious legitimacy by joining the defamation against us, thinking the Left will not then defame them.

“What’s Wrong with the Right,” by Pamela Geller, American Thinker, April 18:

Found HERE.




Indicted Businessman Names Harry Reid as Alleged Recipient of Massive Bribe

A Utah businessman is rocking both state and national politics after claiming Utah Attorney General John Swallow helped him broker a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a federal investigation into his company quietly disappear, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Jeremy Johnson was allegedly told that the price would be $600,000, and claims to have made an initial payment of $250,000 when he was slapped with a federal lawsuit.  Now he says he wants his money back.

The Salt Lake Tribune points out that Johnson has no way of knowing whether the funds actually made it to Reid, even if he did make a massive payment to Reid’s alleged intermediary.

Though the connection to Reid remains unverified, some are remembering how Reid claimed on the Senate floor that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxesfor ten years based on far less evidence.

Read the full story at The Blaze.



Battling PTSD with Virtual Reality, Really Piss Off a Liberal, Easter Bunny causes climate change



Inside the Research Institute Battling PTSD with Virtual Reality

No matter how deep a civilian’s interest is when it comes to PTSD in the military, and how it can be treated or prevented—if you don’t have battle experience, you’ll always be a few steps away when it comes to relating to the men and women who return from battle with mental wounds.

For many people in Canada, which boasts a small military, meeting an active soldier or a veteran during one’s average day can be rare, especially when media stereotypes tend to depict veterans as scattered or mentally ravaged. Because of that, I was pleased to meet Jody Mitic, a war hero who stepped on a landmine and lost both of his feet in Afghanistan, and who has become an outspoken advocate of soldiers’ mental health.

PTSD remains a massive, widespread problem facing veterans today, and one of the most confounding, troublesome aspects of treating it is the difficulty in predicting who it will afflict. For example, despite his injuries, Jody says he has not been affected by PTSD.

I first met Jody last year, over Twitter, after I published an article about Rob Ford and his unbelievably terrible photographer. In that piece, I compared Rob Ford to FDR; namely because FDR, who was paralyzed, was rarely photographed, which helped boost his image to the public as a strong, political figure. I suggested Rob Ford should adopt the same kind of strategy (jokingly, because what political figure in this Google Glass era could avoid being photographed?), and in the original draft, I referred to FDR as crippled instead of paralyzed.

This caused a minor Twitter flare-up between myself and an awesome wheelchair athlete named Jeff Adams, who I can now call a friendly, real-life acquaintance, who then looped in Jody, who then invited me out for a beer.

Jody is an ideal conduit to bridge the divide between the experiences of soldiers and the curiosity of civilians. As a professional, motivational speaker, with a bit of reality TV fame under his belt in Canada, Jody has made a living out of being open about his experiences.

So, after hours and hours of discussion and research into about how we at Motherboard and VICE Canada could investigate PTSD treatment, we landed on Skip Rizzo and his team at the Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT) at University of Southern California, who are using virtual reality therapy to treat PTSD.

Because of his experience, Jody’s reactions and comments on Skip’s equipment were highly valuable. It’s stunning that someone like Jody, who as a sniper witnessed all kinds of carnage, and who lost both of his feet to a landmine, can still manage to avoid the syndrome. This of course adds to the mystery of the condition, and is what largely fuels his own personal curiosity.

We also spoke to Sgt. John Warren, who the LA Times eloquently spilled ink over in a feature story that ran late last year. Sgt. Warren, an American, fought in Iraq and fell victim to a horrific roadside bomb incident that left him with PTSD. As Christopher Goffard wrote in the Times, “Warren woke to find himself in a furnace. He heard the shrill screaming of someone in terror. He realized it was himself. Fire ate at his neck and face.”

The focus of the LA Times piece, however, is Sgt. Warren’s treatment. After going through immersive VR therapy at Rizzo’s clinic, he now (while the word “cure” is a tough one to use here) feels like a much healthier man.

Video games and virtual reality have been a part of our lives for decades, but we’re clearly only scratching the surface of how they can help us become better human beings, and how they can help us heal. “The sad part of war is, of course, it sucks, but if you can pull anything good out of it, it’s that the urgency of war drives innovation,” Rizzo told us. “Soldiers are the test case, and when we move on to the next thing, it’ll be using this kind of technology with civilians. Making a difference for everybody.”

While we’re hoping that the technologies we saw at ICT will soon trickle down into militaries worldwide, there are clearly implications here for the entire planet. There’s surely a market for virtual therapists that can’t or won’t charge you by the hour; that kept your secrets safe from prying eyes (except for maybe the NSA, perhaps).

And likewise, for victims of trauma outside of the military, these simulations could help people cope, and move on. This is very much the beginning of a new wave of tech-therapy that’s in still its infancy, and after witnessing it firsthand, I truly believe it has a lot of power to make us better humans.

This is from the Motherboard.




Congress demands more information on NSA spy programs .

FBI agents storm out from Senate hearing to avoid testifying on Insider Threat program .

‘Zero knowledge privacy’: NSA-proof email service goes online .

Two justices say high court will likely rule on NSA programs.




IPCC-ACLU Report: The Easter Bunny causes climate change

In a new bombshell report designed to strip away the last ounce of American social fabric, a joint panel of leftists issued a report that could cancel the holiest Christian Sunday on the calendar. According to the International Panel on Climate Change-American Civil Liberties Union report, the Easter Bunny causes climate change.

The report recommends that all Easter egg rolls be immediately canceled. The movement of eggs on the grass in a rolling fashion does damage to the grass, and the Easter Bunny himself exhales poisonous carbon dioxide.

The IPCC-ACLU groups stressed that for America to truly be a politically leftist utopian paradise, nobody will be allowed to engage in anything that any reasonable person could possibly consider fun. All happy children must grow up to be as dour and miserable as the leftists in charge.

The National Organization for Women cried sexism that children have to learn about Easter from a male rabbit rather than a female one. The female rabbits do all the hard work of preparing the eggs, yet the male bunnies get to frolic on the lawn with the kids and reap all the glory. The NOW feminists, who have never found joy in anything ever, fully support the Easter Bunny ban.

One leftist Asian group declared the term “egg roll” to be an anti-Asian slur, and encouraged Easter participants to be more culturally sensitive. When Americans asked if they should stop eating egg rolls so that Chinese restaurants go bankrupt, the leftist Asian group responded that kale was delicious.

The IPCC-ACLU report only applies to the Easter Bunny character, and not to Peter Rabbit when he is off the clock. As long as Peter is secular, he can not only roll eggs but throw them at nearby cars while yelling “Occupy.” The IPCC-ACLU report also recommended that leftists work with the Libertarians to replace the Easter Egg Roll with a Spring Solstice Marijuana Roll. The kids will be allowed to roll the joints themselves in keeping with Christian traditions as taught in Common Core textbooks.

From Joe for America.




The Real Reason China Wants Aircraft Carriers.

East Ukraine separatists stay put despite diplomatic deal.


Leadership: The China Rules Get Enforced.

U.N.: Iran Cuts Nuclear Assets Despite Slow Progress on Uranium Site .


Taking Leave Of Their Census



Russia’s Vladimir Putin Still Has Friends In The West .

Hisham Aidi | The Era of Hip-Hop Diplomacy

New ‘Google’ for the Dark Web Makes Buying Dope and Guns Easy .

Gaza’s population balloons .

Weekend Reading: Easter Edition.


The Great Sea Urchin Crisis

sea urchin

Invasive species and sushi lovers threaten to wipe the little creatures from the Nova Scotian coast. And with them, a $2.5 million industry.

Sea urchins from the bed of the Atlantic Ocean are served in Japan on another bed, one of rice. The roe inside their spiky scalps is a delicacy, which meets the tongue with a sweet tang and wiggles down the throat like milky tofu. But the Atlantic’s sea urchins are disappearing. And a formerly $2.5 million-per-year Nova Scotian industry is disappearing with them.

Tye Zinck chips the ice off his scuba mask, yells a warrior cry and lunges off the boat. Until he can slow his gasping, he floats atop the 40 degree water, the wind of Sambro Cove, Nove Scotia, biting at his ears. The seams of his dry suit are so thick that it looks inside out.

“To make sure it won’t leak!” he called over the rumble of the boat’s motor as he was zipping himself up. “You don’t want that water pouring down your ass cheeks in March!”

Dragging a cage that can trap about 30 urchins and a rake the size of a squeegee, Zinck thumbs a button on his suit and starts to sink. The captain and crewmember wait on deck, swaying in puddles of slush with their noses frozen clogged, the air creeping down their collars and numbing their pores. The deck clouds with fumes as the boat vibrates on the spot—shivering.

But Zinck no sooner bubbles back to the surface.

“Couldn’t find shit,” he mutters as he climbs aboard.

He has to try two more dives to spot any urchins, wasting time, propane, and body heat. Although Zinck used to earn up to $6,000 per week during the winter as an urchin diver, he’ll make less than a third of that this year.

“They’re completely dying off,” says Zinck. “It’s drastic.”

Read more HERE.




“The government is reading and storing all of my emails? No big deal; I’m not a terrorist, so I am OK.

The government is listening to and storing all my phone calls? Whatever, I don’t talk to terrorists.

The government is tracking and storing my location? So what? I don’t go anywhere that is suspect.

The government is targeting political enemies and surveilling journalists? Who cares? I’m not an activist or a partisan, so this does not affect me.

This isn’t a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it isn’t even a conservative vs. liberal issue… this is an American vs. un-American issue. Do you wish to be a free American, or will you accept becoming a slave to a massive and all-powerful police state? You are either an advocate for freedom and limited government, or you are an advocate for tyranny. There is no gray area, no middle ground to be found here. This government has slowly amassed powers over the last hundred years that would horrify the Founders of this nation. As I stated earlier, I can’t believe the shooting hasn’t already started.

For you liberal readers out there, let me offer this: pick your favorite right-wing boogieman, the craziest fascist evil criminal wingnut that there is, and make that person the President…. President Dick Cheney, President Rick Santorum, President Charles Koch, President Alan West, President Michelle Bachmann, President Rush Limbaugh, President Glen Beck, President Joe Arpaio, President John Bolton, President Ted Nugent… whoever really freaks you out.

Now ask yourself this question: Do you want that person to have the power and the surveillance apparatus and the unchecked force of the IRS that Barack Obama and this massive government now wields?” –Taxicab Depressions


obama michelle shitheads


Capital Man

Thomas Piketty is economics’ biggest sensation. He’s also the field’s fiercest critic.

The French economist Thomas Piketty arrived in Washington, D.C., on Sunday for a week of talks at some of the nation’s leading policy-research centers but which might as well have been billed as a victory lap up the East Coast. The English translation of Piketty’s new book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, a formidably rigorous, 700-page history of wealth, out barely five weeks, had just made The New York Times’s best-seller list. But even before it appeared, on the strength of a handful of advance reviews and a surge of Internet buzz, Piketty’s transformation was complete: from respected researcher on income distribution to ranking heavyweight, a scholar who, armed with reams of data and charts—and, unusual for an economist, a gilded tongue—proposed to upend decades of mainstream wisdom on inequality though an unprecedented analysis of the past.

The Economist declared that Piketty’s book may “revolutionize the way people think about the economic history of the past two centuries” and started an online reading group to discuss it chapter by chapter. The British magazine Prospect added Piketty to its annual list of the most influential world thinkers, and his book was said to be making the rounds in the office of Ed Milliband, the British Labour Party leader. Documentary filmmakers were vying for the chance to turn the book into a movie; a composer was seeking Piketty’s blessing to make it an opera.

Now the 42-year-old Frenchman had come, like a wonkish heir to de Tocqueville, to tell Americans how to salvage what he called their “egalitarian pioneer ideal” from a potentially devastating “drift toward oligarchy.” His anointment was all the more remarkable in that he intended his book not just as a novel argument about inequality but as a pointed rebuke to his field—in particular its American wing.

Read on HERE.




Look Who’s Gawking: Inside Nick Denton’s phony, hypocritical class war against tech workers

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” – Warren Buffett

“Hypocrisy is the only modern sin.” – Nick Denton

Last Friday morning, a shuttle bus transporting Google workers from Oakland to Mountain View was surrounded by a mob. A banner was unfurled – “Fuck off Google” — and several of the protesters began hurling rocks at the bus, smashing a side window. Later reports suggested the bus had its tires slashed before police arrived to break up the violence.

The attack coincided with a similar protest in San Francisco, which remained peaceful, although afterwards Erin Mcelroy of Eviction-Free San Francisco told Pando she was “excited” that her Oakland colleagues were “mobilizing in different ways.”

And so this is what it’s come to.

The technology industry in San Francisco continues to grow, and its highly paid workers continue to force up housing rents, pricing out local blue collar workers. Then there’s the Ellis Act which, critics say, makes it easier for landlords to force out long-time tenants with almost no oversight (defenders of the act argue that, in most cases, homeowners have to financially compensate evicted tenants). What’s not in doubt is that multi-billion-dollar companies like Twitter are being offered tax breaks to remain in San Francisco, while many regular folks can’t afford to stay even if they want to.

Setting aside the irony that, without those tax breaks, companies like Twitter had threatened to move out of San Francisco to nearby cities like Oakland, it’s not hard to understand why many workers in the Bay Area are angry at Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Marissa Mayer, Jack Dorsey and any of the other tech billionaires who have caused average one bedroom rents in San Francisco to rise close to $3000, and are likely to cause similar price hikes in Oakland.

Read more HERE.


The science of ‘Transcendence’ isn’t just fiction—it’s terrifyingly real

This Friday, a movie called Transcendence will arrive in theaters. Directed by Christopher Nolan’s go-to cinematographer, Wally Pfister, and penned by first-time screenwriter Jack Paglen (whose script appeared on the infamous Black List), Transcendence is being sold as Hollywood’s next sci-fi epic. So far, reviews haven’t been kind (although they’re still rolling in), and box office predictions have been tepid.

The movie follows Johnny Depp’s Dr. Caster’s journey from being fatally shot to uploading his mind into a supercomputer, where he achieves the all-knowing, all-powerful state he’s only dreamed about before. But whether Transcendence ends up being the movie of the year or another Nolanesque piece of genre silliness, the concept that gives the film its title is something we need to consider—because this time, these ideas are real.

Transcendence is based directly on the principle of singularity, the moment when technology surpasses humanity. In fact, Dr. Caster, the film’s protagonist, even states as much in the trailer, asking an audience to, “Imagine a machine with the full range of human emotion. It’s analytical power will be greater than the collective intelligence of every person in the history of the world. Some scientists refer to this as the singularity. I call it Transcendence.”

Over the years, the biggest proponent of the singularity has been noted author, scientist, and futurist Ray Kurzweil, who freely acknowledges that, “Science fiction is the great opportunity to speculate on what could happen.” Although a notorious eccentric, Kurzweil’s thinking has led to numerous technological innovations over the last few decades. Recently, he partnered with Google (yes, Google) in their efforts towards “using techniques of deep learning to produce an artificial brain.”

More to read HERE.


Modern Sharks May Not Be “Living Fossils” After All

Analysis of a 325 million-year-old fossil suggests that modern sharks have evolved extensively, rather than remaining unchanged since prehistoric times

Sharks are usually thought of as primitive creatures, sometimes called “living fossils.” But a new study of a 325-million-year-old shark fossil — the most complete of its kind — suggests modern sharks have evolved significantly from their bony ancestors.

The ancient fossil has characteristics of both bony fishes and modern sharks. But its gill structures more closely resemble those of bony fishes, challenging the notion that modern sharks have remained unchanged over evolutionary time.

“Standard anatomical textbooks say that the shark is a model of a primitive jawed vertebrate, [but] that’s all wrong,” said John Maisey, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a co-author of the study detailed today (April 16) in the journal Nature. [8 Weird Facts About Sharks]

Until now, paleontologists studying the evolution of early jawed vertebrates, or gnathostomes, have focused on either cartilaginous fishes (modern sharks and rays) or bony fishes. Modern sharks were thought to have changed very little over evolutionary time.

But comparing a modern shark with a primitive one would be like comparing a modern automobile with a Ford Model T — they share some similarities, but under the hood they’re completely different, Maisey told Live Science.

Read more HERE.


make love not war lefties