Re: Request to remove Information
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Request to remove Information
- From: Chris Bannister <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:53:11 +1300
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20051204085311.GC9453@kan>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20051116142244.GC29243@fornost.com> <20051116182256.GA12682@midsouth.rr.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20051122084442.GK16969@kan> <email@example.com>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:17:39AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > One theory says that the "fat phenotype" is a useful evolutionary
> > > adaptation, and that the "skinny phenotype" would have a harder
> > > time surviving in times of low food.
> > That is because the "fat phenotype" would eat it all.
> Ha ha.
> The real hypothesis is that the "fat phenotype" would have extra
> stored fat, and have a slower metabolism, thus being able to more
> easily survive the lean times.
Yeah, *some* "skinny phenotypes" do tend to eat voraciously. ;-)
> > > Of course, it's unprovable and has nothing to to with how many
> > > Cokes I drink per day...
> > No, it just rots your teeth, helps diabetes, etc, etc, etc.
> Well, yeah. But there was no "sugar" 200,000 years ago, so that
> was never a problem. Besides, how many people get degenerative
> diseases when the life expectancy is 40yo?
it == coke (1 can of coke is similar to drinking a cup of very strong
black coffee with about 3 tablespoons of sugar; try offering that to
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3