Ramius

i'm with ya. get rid of the blue shoulder stripe, and change the light blue numbers to match the normal navy blue of our current unis. they wouldnt look as horrendous. But i am really starting to like the throwbacks more and more every time we wear them.

Agreed. Even the furher himself would laugh hysterically if you tried to tell him the "true value" of a die is 3.5

No, i see your point. My point was just to illustrate that IQ is at best, a piss-poor way to measure intelligence in a human population, and on the whole, its not going to tell you jack sh-- about a person's future or intelligence level. And theres no way you could even attempt to selectively breed for intelligence based on IQ. But herr holcomb is fascinated with 1940's east germany, and thinks a eugenics program in the US would somehow "better" society. What i cant figure out is why he's such a strong advocate of a program in which he'd be one of the first people sterilized, based on his display of intelligence.

Once again, you're hung up in IQ as though its a realistic determination of intelligence. Its shaky at best. And referring to your tests, lets have people take a test under ideal circumstances. They then can take a second test after being repeatedly woken up every 15 minutes the night before with loud music and noise. We'll also annoy them repeatedly during the testing. Guess what? you'll find scores on the second test are significantly different than scores on the first test. And the genetics of the people are the same. its the ENVIRONMENT thats different. And once again, since your little brain cant comprehend this concept. You can selectively breed for behaviors. Intelligence is not a behavior. You cannot selectively breed for intelligence based on your asinine criteria. . With nuclear physicists, you can take 2 of them from anywhere, and there's nothing that says they'll have a kid thats smarter than average. because being a nuclear physicist doesnt make someone smart. it could be they are smart. it could also be that they have a lower IQ and work their ass off to get the job done. You have a tough time seeing that as a possibility, when it occurs everyday.

You have a dog that can smoke?

Apparently you cannot distinguish between breeding for a specific behavior, as was, and has been done for centuries to animals, and attempting to bred for some abstract concept as "intelligence". With animals, i can watch a dog and breed 2 dogs that are the "best swimmers" or "best herders". I can test rats, and breed the "fastest" rat. The point is, which you will wont understand, is that you can observe and qualify animals based on their traits, and selectively breed for the desired trait. What you dont understand, however, is how intelligence is a whole different ball game. Yoiu cant just observe people and establish intelligence. And dont give me any IQ test bull sh-- here either. IQ != intelligence. You cant just breed 2 nuclear physicists and get another smarter one. (provided you can actually find a female nuclear physicist). Where you go wrong is thinking that intelligence is somehow a concrete measurable trait, which it isnt. Intelligence is a complex, abstract concept, that humans have created and decided to apply to themselves. Intelligence is NOT a behavior. both you and wolley are using the "humans are special and above nature, so from that we can prove that humans are special and above nature" arguement, which is circular and wrong.

No sh-- sherlock, of course gene fitness is dependent on the gene. But as per usual, holcomb is taking an isolated incident and trying to extrapolate to an entire population. In this case, he was trying to point out that the environment only affects the gene in a single way, which is wrong. He then wrongly tried ot apply this to an entire population. He has no clue about what the f*ck hes talking about. he was arguing with a published textbook fer chrissakes! Before you start defending your little butt-buddy, why dont you go back and read the 50 pages of his where he's attempted to say that the "true value" of a 6-sided die is 3.5. The idiocy must be contagious around these parts. Actually, this thread is an perfect example of gene vs environment. In the real world, genetically stupid people people like holcomb would have been done away with by nature long ago due to sheer stupidity. But here, on the intertubes, holcomb has found an environment where his stupidity can flourish.

Hahahahahaha willis making national news. No one outside of WNY gives 2 ***** about willis having a few kids out of wedlock or his comments in playboy. This board and the buffalo snooze are the only places making a big deal out of it.

Something is off about what? The fact that a black high school senior got a BJ from a girl who willingly gave it, and got 10 years in prison, yet the white teacher who had sex with an underage student got 90 days? If this isnt a case of cut and dry backwoods southern hick ass racism, i dont know what is.

its not just a non-understanding of the mechanism. Its that there is no DISCERNABLE mechanism to get from genotype to phenotype!. We dont know how the hell intelligence is determined from genetics and environment, and there is no indisputable effective way to assign a numerical value to intelligence, so theres no way you can successfully selectively breed for it. The genetic/environment aspects of intelligence are so highly unknown that it is impossible to even attempt to successfully breed for it. And dont give me any IQ BS either. Using IQ as a basis for intelligence is so highly debated it carries no scientific merit. Methinks you would have been better off living in 1940's germany, herr holcomb.

good luck rock! if you decide oyu want a graduate degree in bio-med engineering, send your resume to me and i'll forward it to my boss. we're always looking for new people in the lab. the stipend isnt great, at about 20K a year, but the FSU football is good, and we can always use more people in our bills backers!

Holcomb's arm knows more than published geneticists. got it. I like the touch of refuting scientific fact with his own small minded retarded beliefs. Holcombs arm logic: "If my stance goes against mainstream science/math, then mainstream science and math are wrong."

i see you've reestablished internet connection form under the overpass. since oyu lost your house and everything else, how do you golf now during bills games?

Just to prove you are wrong, here are direct quotes from my genetics textbook. 1. "Heritability for IQ is commonly accepted as 0.60. heritability is a stat pertaining to a population, and has NO meaning when applied to an individual. It is therefore NOT correct to say 60% of a person's IQ is determined by genes and 40% is determined by environment." 2. "heritability estimates pertain only to variation within the specific population, and NOT to variation between populations. A heritability of 0.60 does NOT mean that 60% of the differences between IQ scores between 2 separate populations is due to different genes." 3. "Heribility of a characteristic is NOT a permanent characteristic of a population. It pertains to a given time, under the currently prevailing conditions." 4. "Heritable does not mean inevitable" 5. "The heritbility of intelligence , even with an estimate as high as 0.60, is an inadequate foundation on which to base claims and construct social policy." 6. "For a complex trait such as intelligence, there is no readily discernable chain of cause and effects events leading from genotype to phenotype, such as ther is in albinism of hemophelia." Looks like you have been proven wrong, once and for all. Thanks for playing. And for good measure: when you claim that your regression to the mean beliefs clash with darwinism, that tells us that your regression analysis and beliefs are bull sh-- and wrong, NOT darwinism.

nick, that logo is utterly putrid. way too busy, and cutting off half the buffalo doesnt do anything for the logo. Also, the logo on the white helmet is a terrible combination. I can live with the current helmets, or the throwback helmets, but the current logo on the white helmet makes me want to vomit.

You are good at one thing: taking a single isolated example, and extrapolating it to the entire group/population just to prove your asinine point, no matter how wrong it is. Genetic fitness is going to depend on the environment, not the gene. I can put those same bacteria into a host that has a short life span. What happens? the "normal bacteria dont reproduce enough before the host dies. The fast reproducing bacteria reproduce enough to spread before the host dies. Hence the mutated bacteria are better.

Lions have re-signed Furrey http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2740972

actually, that has been discussed at length as well. its easy to just factlessly scream RosenhausBAD! The difficult part is reading some other posts and formulating your own conclusions. But then againb, if you want to discuss rosenhaus, why dont you start another thread?

awww, how cute. holcomb has a little butt-buddy. Of course, some might call sickle cell anemia a "genetic defect" Others might call it a good way to survive from malaria.

Some days i really wonder where you pull this sh-- from. First off, where the hell does this claim of "decline in genetic basis for intelligence" come from? and dont even bring up your worthless bull sh-- about IQ and regression to the mean. this topic has nothing to do with that. right here we are dealing with your complete inability to understand genetics. Survival is the name of the game, not technological advancement. I play along with your boneheaded claims for a minute. If a disease comes along and wipes out all people that are highly intelligent, guess what? that means that stupid people are better fit to survive in the world. This isnt going to cause humanity to go extinct, it will merely change the shape of the human population. If we pollute the air with so many fossil fuels and such, and kill off a ton of people, whos going to survive? the people best able to adapt to the changing environment. Little history lesson here: a few billion years ago, the earth was being polluted with this toxic gas. it was getting to dangerous levels. what happend? species evolved to survive cope with these conditions and it had nothing to do with intelligence. this toxic gas was called oxygen. Frankly tho, if human extinction meant you wouldnt be able to post, and thereby an end to all your worthless nonsensical ideas, i'm all for it.

McNabb isnt going anywhere. Garcia probably, but not D-Mac. The Eagles have a storied history recently of not handing out big contracts to players over 30. And now you think they are going to pin their hopes on a 36 year old garcia?

Blalock was on an ESPN chat whining that it was too cold in mobile. That, coupled with the fact that he's a texas OL, and just a texas player in general, leads me to just say NO to blalock.

signing bonuses are paid out at the time of signing, but for cap purposes, they are spread over the length of the deal. so a 5 year deal with a 15 mil SB, the player gets his 15 million check right there. But the bonus only counts 3 mil per year against the cap. (unless he's cut, then you get into dead cap)

i was going to say something similar. The raiders are a mess, and its largely davis's fault, but in the past, he's hired a few "no-name youngsters" by the names of shanahan and gruden to coach his team.

i agree completely. i dont like the tone coming out of OBD on a lot of the cap talks. i know we cant spend cash freely like snyder down in DC, but at some point, you need to pony up some cash and make an attempt to sign (or re-sign in NC's case) a high profile large dollar player. With the cap increases, salaries are going to increase as well, so a lot of salaries that seem high really wont be when you look at the big picture.