woolley

In the example, I don't think natural selection chooses anything. It theoretically can, we can even assert that it does in any given scenario, but with nutrition, there is no actual selection. I can think of one possible selection...say, if the healthiest people tend to mate with each other, and the unhealthiest/mal-nutritious people tend to mate with each other. Perhaps, over a really really really long time you can weed out some small percetage of people who, I dunno, will have poor organs or something and will tend to die at early ages, after generation after generation of bad-eating people who devolve. Just to defend the status quo opinion (which I'm actually loathe to do), mainstream evolutionists insist that humans haven't evolved bigger or healthier, but it's simply a result of how humans live their individual lives. I don't know if they necessarily eat healthy in European nations...birth rates are definitely down in Europe. In Asian nations too. There can't even be a parallel asserted between how healthy you eat and how much you reproduce. Anecdotally you can argue that the opposite is true, definitely historically. -Elliot

Physical anthropologists would stop you here, such links don't exist, although I know you weren't necessarily speaking particuarly. No current evolutionary theories assert that chimps evolved into humans, in case anyone reading this is wondering. But I think you're just using chimps as a colloquial example, I'm not really correcting you. I'm actually not sure if a perfect missing link, say, a link smack dab in the middle, would be able to mate with a human or a chimp. The links would have to be a lot closer to one or the other...in which case you may not actually differentiate them into different species. Woolley

OK, I thought you were talking Lamarckian, I get your point. Here's my point, which I didn't really develop. If humans, say in our culture, lived in a state where people who ate the best reproduced 5 times more than people who didn't eat well at all, you'd be able to say that nutrition does guide which genes get propagated. But everybody reproduces. Just because you are rich and eat well and are, errr, really big or whatever, doesn't mean you're any more or less likely to reproduce than if you are poor. Bad nutrition will catch up to you after you've passed normal reproductive age, so people who eat poorly won't get culled from the gene pool. Natural selection, when it comes to how humans eat and how nutritiously they eat, is irrelevant. It could be relevant...but it would be a totally different world in that case, a world where people died all the time from not eating right. Again, basically everybody reproduces, so natural selection is moot on this one. -Woolley

Natural selection selects genes. Genes are not influenced by nutrition, phenotype does not affect genotype. Our zygotes aren't "improved" because we are eating better. -Woolley

To demonstrate, via comparison, why displeasure with McGahee exists, and is valid. Did Kenny Davis have an attitude problem? Was Kenny Davis an off the field disctraction? How about Riddick or Jamie Mueller, picking a random player was exactly my point. True, I guess no arguments require personal opinion. I do think the front office, however, has no compunction against using personal opinion in evaluating players, and of course their opinions mean a lot more than any of ours. This is a message board, and we do share personal opinions. And even people who *know* other people often don't know them. Sports teams *ought* to consider their fan's opinions when it comes to likeability, don't you think? If a player suggests that the Bills ought to leave Buffalo and that turns off thousands of fans, that's objective reality. The Bills would be foolish to ignore the objective reality of unhappy fans. I'm not saying by the way that McGahee is a crap back, or that we need an upgrade at running back. I'm simply saying that we have a damn good shot at getting a hell of a year out of a guy playing for a $25 million dollar contract somewhere. I'd prefer it to not be here, but that decision can be put off another year. Is he capable of a 1600 yard season? Sure. Mike Anderson had a 1600 yard season a few years ago. No complaints out of me if McGahee has a hell of a year. -Woolley

No, just 2 (or 3) on each line. One more for the O Line, one more for the Line. Giving $3 million a year to guys like Fowler and Reyes or Villariel and Panos or haven't helped us the past 5 or 10 years and won't help us for the next 5 of 10 years, unless our goal is continued mediocrity. I think RT is looking good because of low expectations for the guy who is occupying the position. Does Pennington have Wolford or Ballard upside? I guess I don't know, but I'm not in favor of waiting for 2 or 3 years to find out. I think if we can plug in an all-pro caliber guard things will be looking good. I also think it would be nice to draft an olineman with a 1st or 2nd round pick. We haven't done that since when, Ruben Brown? Yes, let's get an all-pro caliber DLineman. -Woolley

I think that the Bills have way too many "nice" players who we overvalue...and that may extend to the front office...I hope not, but maybe it does. Besides Jason Peters, we simply *don't* have any O Linemen worth getting excited about. We just don't. Yeah...Pennington...it's great that a 7th round rookie ended up as a starter. That's one way of looking at it. Or how about this. He started because we have ZERO talent on the line besides Peters. In other words it's a *bad* thing that a 7th round rookie ended up as a starting tackle. Fowler...Villareiel...Reyes...they are *nice* linemen to have if you have 2 or 3 other studs on the line. With all the warm bodies we don't have to worry about depth, or worry about what to do with Gandy. Get a couple of studs on the O Line. Use a 1st or 2nd round pick. Give $4 million to an all-pro caliber guard. I'm sick about hearing about how Preston is an adequate guard. We have more than enough adequate players to be a 7 and 9 team. Same problem on the D Line. I put Triplett in the same category as Fowler and Reyes. A nice player, and we're stuck with him for another few years. McCargo is the wild card...and we may not get anything out of him til 2008. We need a Pat Williams. Aaron Schobel is a nice Phil Hansen, but I'd settle for fewer sacks out of him if we had a Bruce Smith on the other side. By May, through the draft and free agency, let's get a few pro bowl potential players on the line to go along with Peters and Schobel. One on the O Line, one on the D Line. That would make me happy. As for the filler, too much talk and worrying about them, we have plenty. That's two out of three. All-pro caliber O Line and D Line. And an all-pro caliber linebacker. We've got 30 million to spend. Between a first rounder and a second rounder and some *big* free agents let's fill those needs. I like the idea of a wide receiver to complement Evans as well. Let's think big. Here's hoping Marv was just playing it safe/getting his feet wet last offseason. Woolley

No, actually, it's because of what he *has* done off the field and what he *hasn't* done on the field that makes many of us...well, I don't know if hate's the word. I'd take a Kenny Davis in his prime over McGahee any day. Nobody hated Kenny Davis. McGahee's just not a likeable guy, and more than that, he hasn't done anything in three years to suggest that he's a stud running back who can carry the team into the playoffs. Reasons for personally disliking him (granted, they should be secondary to his playing ability) have been duly documented. They are real reasons, regardless of your dismissive attitude. Woolley

The best song to have sex to would, more importantly, have to be one that is also easy to sleep to when I'm done. How about anything by Enya. Woolley

This is easy. Let Willis play for a contract. If he has a monster year, we get it at a bargain price. If we sign him for what...4 million a year or something...it's too much risk and too little reward. Take out his games against the Jets and his career thusfar is below mediocre. As for his attitude, Marv should remain consistent. Willis has not earned special treatment. His nonsense would not be tolerated if he was just another player. I can respect Marv not slapping a tag on Clements because he told Clements that he wouldn't. So be consistent, and place a premium on high character guys like you told the fans you would. Why reward Willis? It's crazy. And I say...unless we can get a first round pick...don't trade the guy. Let him play for a new contract. He won't sit out...he's entering what is theoretically the prime of his career. Sitting out would put a mega contract at risk. If he gets 5-6 million a year from some other team next offseason, God bless him. And his eighteen illegitimate kids. Woolley

For the past 10 years astronomers who study the sun have said reported that the sun is emitting more and more heat radiation as the years progress. The sun is the obvious answer, but it's more comforting to blame global warming on ourselves (or other people). Because if the the sun is the culprit, there's nothing we can do about it, and who wants to feel impotent when you can point fingers at people, it's funner. Woolley

Yes, but this has been attributed to nutrition and not Darwinian evolution. In order for it to be "evolution", you'd have to have the environment "select" (sorry for the quotes...no I'm not) for taller people over shorter people, and basically with a technological society where the sick are cured there really are no extant selective pressures, it ain't just the "fit" that reproduce or have offspring that must survive to reproduce. Woolley

There's only ONE reason why this game matters. I have over 7 for Bills wins this season.

Oh man............................................................ Probably at least 70% of my gambling losses (I'm probably down 15-20 thousand in my life) have been doing just that. You lose a bet, and in the next bet you bet enough to recoup your losses. It's not a double or nothing mentality, it's more like a quadruple or nothing mentality.

There's only one system that has ever worked for me, but I have a few thousand invested into it. Identify a few teams who you are certain will win *at least* 3 out of 5 games. Wager enough to win $100 per game. If it's a loss, in the next game, wager enough to win $200 per game. When a losing streak ends, return to $100 a game. Following this system (which I initiated early 2005 after YEARS of losing money) you won't break the bank, but you'll win 200-400 a month. I've been exclusively betting on the Colts and Sabres this calendar year and am up about $3000. Last year I rode several teams and finished ahead $4000.

Not just the best debut ever, but the best album ever. Thankfully they didn't release Garage Flower in 1985. Big Star's debut, #1 Record, hasn't been mentioned yet. Suede, The Smiths, both self-titled debuts. Here are some others that haven't been mentioned yet: Jesus and Mary Chain, Psychocandy De La Soul, 3 Feet High and Rising MC5, Kick Out the Jams Kate Bush, The Kick Inside Joy Division, Unknown Pleasures The Wedding Present, George Best Patti Smith, Horses Dexy's Midnight Runners, Searching for the Young Soul Rebels Van Morrison, Astral Weeks Billy Bragg, Life's a Riot with Spy v Spy Television Marquee Moon and of course Primal Scream Sonic Flower Groove!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Elliot