The New York Times:
Could people one day evolve to eat rich food while remaining perfectly slim and svelte?
This may not be so wild a fantasy. It is becoming clear that the human genome does respond to changes in diet, even though it takes many generations to do so.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Indeed. You will evolve into a fat slod and stroke out at age 45.
It's called survival of the fittest for a reason folks.
I guess humans will adapt to smoking. Just think of all the revenue for the schools.
This is a moronic blog...put it in a time capsule for the humans living 2000 years from now to laugh at....and give us MORE Larry Flynt exposing those mother fucker Repuke scumbags!!!
I wonder how much McDonalds paid the NY Times to get this published. The science in this article was laughable. "Many generations"?! That's a bit of an understatement. Evolution happens over thousands and millions of years not a few generations. Also, how ancestors evolved tens of thousands of years ago bears little resemblance to how we are evolving today. This kind of an adaptation could only take hold if people were dying before breeding age or otherwise unable to breed due to being over weight. There is no evidence that I know of that this is the case. Just one more example of pseudo-science to reinforce what McAmerica wants their idiot consumers to believe.
I'm so fat I can't turn around.
There's no end in sight.
If you wanna cure obesity, put the parking lots further away from the restaurants....you're a 'consumer', that's your job, is to consume. You buy stuff, you eat stuff, and Madison Avenue really doesn't give a tinker's damn if you keel over as a byproduct of all this consumption. That's why institutions like the American Medical Association and it's counterparts and partners need to focus more on
broadcasting good-health information, and putting the emphasis on heart-healthy food, instead of trying to invent a magic pill that
will melt away your fat butt. Parents also need to take some initiative and slap the chip bag out of their kids' hands, and chase their lazy butts outside. TV isn't called 'the idiot box' by accident, if you sit in front of it for hours per day and let your kids do likewise, the result is kind of predictable.
When your eating habits are programmed into you by a Fritos commercial every 6 minutes, being 40 pounds overweight on average is no real shocker. But, selling potato chips brings revenue, brings up the stock value, and finances TV shows that would have otherwise likely been cancelled....I think they could sell pre-packaged carrot sticks in similar fashion, though, and make money that way instead...
Global warming will kill us before this.
Come on, people...get your apacolyptic hysteria in order.
I'd like to know where huffington post got the picture of Bill Clinton in his McDonald days.
Humans evolve, but not at the speed of Marketing.
The article itself is considerably less sensational than the headline. It acknowledges that any change in the digestive enzyme would take "many generations."
At the rate we're going, with Big Dick Cheney's finger hovering over the nuclear holocaust button, there won't BE "many generations."
.
The illustration says far more than the article here. What we're seeing is a speciation of the humanity. No, it's not about race, it's about decline. There's homo sapiens, a gracile, active, individualistic and athletic animal. And there's homo suburbianis, an obese, lethargic herd mammal that tends to prefer huge eating sessions and continual grazing, preferably on food sources that contain absolutely no natural ingredients aside from refined sugar, high-cholesterol thoroughly processed animal fat, and high fructose corn syrup.
On the basis of physiological form, habitat use, and behavior, sapiens and suburbianis are not the same species. Yes, they can interbreed, theoretically, but it never happens without the exchange of negotiable cash instruments.
It would be great to think that 100,000 years from now, we'd be able to eat anything we want, live a sofa-surfing lifestyle, and still remain human.
But within a century, homo suburbianis will already have devolved from mammal to techno-mollusk. While a few true humans will still roam the planet, most of our descendants will be pale, sluglike creatures rolling around in painted metal carapaces, kind of like hermit crabs - only uglier.
Wanna stay human? Shut your pie hole and move your legs more.
Anyone ever heard of exercise and activity?
Oh, don't have time I see.
The major problem as I see it for humans to adapt to our processed food, starchy diet is that if there is a major catastrophe, or food shortage, whatever (due to eventual global warming?), the resulting starvation will be that much more intense as the body will have adapted to not storing food, but will have adapted to wasting fat. I mean, they'll look good and all, but when there's no food to go around, those looks will only be appreciated while viewing the coffin.
FAT LARDS WITH A COKE IN THEIT HAND...WHERE'S THE CIGI????
HUMAN RACE SELF DISTRUCTING....IN MORE WAYS THEN ONE
SLOBS WITH NO DISCIPLINE, LOTS OF ARROGANCE AND STUPIDITY...
WHAT A SHAME ! WE WERE ONCE, SOMETIME NOT TOO LONG AGO, A GREAT RACE...
WE BLEW IT
Its an entirely moot point.
Evolution works on the principle that those that can not exist in their environment will die off before they have children. People that eat greasy foods and high fat diets are more likely to be the victim of social darwinism than natural selection seeing as how most people have children of their own long before the effects of high cholesterol and obese weights come into play.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 09-10-07 09:55 AM | Updated: 03-28-08 02:45 AM