http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/ Bringing Trends to Life Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:47:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-159 www.cellulitediary.info » Darwin on Steroids Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:49:39 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-159 [...] Michael Tchong put an intriguing blog post on Darwin on Steroids.Here’s a quick excerpt:Although most of the baseball-loving world could care less that Barry Bonds took steroids, there’s no question that in less than 20 years, Bonds morphed from a 185-pound (84kg) Pittsburgh Pirate to a hulking, 230-pound (104kg) Giants … [...] http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-137 Borkowski Blogs » Steroids are an unstoppable force Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:19:56 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-137 [...] Tchong has written an interesting paper on his site Darwin on Steroids:  his claim is that while 75% of Americans object to steroid use, Marion Jones is part of [...] http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-130 Ubercool » Marion Jones Part of Darwin on Steroids Trend Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:12:16 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-130 [...] Darwin on Steroids [...] http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-124 Wole Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:48:17 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-124 "Taller people make more money" - How quantified is that statement? And can one necessarily presume that it is an accurate summary? Whilst the article you quoted suggests that height might be good for teenage self-esteem, it also concludes that there are many other factors of well-being that account for success in tall people (surprise surprise!) Chances are that healthier (not taller) people make more money. These would also be well-fed people with reasonable access to good healthcare, a consequence of which would be the opportunity for full physical, emotional and intellectual growth, enabling the ability to be economically successful. Your article is clearly not about evolution, it is about social change. You have already in most cases identified the lifestyle changes that are responsible for the physical modifications we are seeing. http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-123 king larry Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:42:21 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-123 maybe the big breasted woman are more likely to reproduce because they are more seen as more attractive these days and therefore more likely to find a mate. survival of the fittest. http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-117 Muse Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:13:07 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-117 I know it's a cool caption but I have never subscribed to Darwin's theory of evolution. To say that we evolved from simplistic forms over time is an insult to the human intelligence. Have we evolved? I think nobody disputes micro evolution. It is univerally agreed that wolves, coyotes, foxes and the variety of domestic dogs came from the original pair of dogs. We have variations within a kind. The same goes for the human genome.That upward evolution from simplicity to complexity as propagated by Darwin's Theory of evolution embraces natural selection as the driving mechanism of change . Organisms change into a totally different form of life over time to best an enviromental change. However, we have seen that every scientific mutation has resulted in a handicap or death. We've not becaome humans with wings or developed forked tongues! So much for X-men.Instead we have improved on our current gene pool through health, wellness and medicine. So much so that we are faster, better and more efficient. We've not added genes, we've improved on what we have. So yes we have micro evolved but not out of our set of genes.We've enhanced what we have and perhaps the only thing I will evolved into is an efficient humanoid. Time to heck into your fountain of youth and blog that to death.:-) http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-115 Michael Tchong Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:07:24 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-115 Thanks for that link and the additional perspecitve, Amanda! :-) http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-114 Muse Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:45:22 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-114 Amanda Wynne, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "Many things will influence height - including genetics - but nutrition is an important factor". The fact That the Dutch invest in good pre and post natal care and better nutrition has perhaps been instrumental in them bagging the tallest award, Here's another supporting url http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3625031.stm for how the human body responds to food and lifestyle changes, in this case in the vertical charts at least. Perhaps it's the growth hormones found in mom's milk. That's what I call steroids in its purest form. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3625031.stm for how the human body responds to food and lifestyle changes, in this case in the vertical charts at least. Perhaps it’s the growth hormones found in mom’s milk. That’s what I call steroids in its purest form.]]> http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-113 admin Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:15:15 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-113 Tony, I've added a really good reason why we have to get taller to survive: taller people make more money. The same goes for multitasking, which I will address separately. I've added links to the entire story to support my observations. http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-106 Tony Freixas Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:51:12 +0000 http://www.ubercool.com/2007/09/30/darwin-on-steroids/#comment-106 Not sure if you'll see this, Mr. admin. But I just bumped into this article again and I'll try to answer your question. Evolution, as I understand it, requires both 1) genetic mutation and 2) natural selection. Let's consider giraffes. A lucky giraffe gets a mutated gene that doesn't kill it (the usual outcome) but which gives it a slightly longer neck. It is lucky enough to survive and pass the gene on to its children who in turn pass it along to theirs. The population of giraffes with this gene happen to survive better than those without because of their ability to reach a food source not available to the others. To claim that people gaining 12 inches in 100 years is an evolutionary event assumes that a random mutation occurred which conferred a height advantage and managed to get spread to an enormous population in just 100 years. Quite a breeding program! What I think is happening is the interaction of existing genes with a changing environment—e.g. better nutrition. That's just speculation; it might be some other environmental factor altogether. Another confusion that people have is not understanding the diversity of the gene pool. This is what allows someone to take a mutt and through selective breeding locate genes *already in the gene pool * to create the wide variety of dogs we see today. This can occur without a single new gene mutation. Hope this is clearer.