/////////////////////////Handshake: Window on Your Genes?
By Benjamin LesterScienceNOW Daily News9 November 2007A limp handshake might say more about a man than he'd like to admit. According to new research, a firm grip is an indicator of genetic fitness. The findings link grip strength to aggressive behavior and sexual history and might provide insight into the mindsets of bullies.
Hand grip strength (HGS) is an inherited trait; about 65% of a person's grip strength is genetically determined, whereas the remaining 35% depends on training and developmental factors such as nutrition. Past studies have connected HGS to various measures of physical condition, including bone density and longevity. "It's a ubiquitous measure of health and vitality," says evolutionary psychologist Gordon Gallup of the University at Albany in New York state.
To find out whether HGS also reflects sexual and social behaviors, Gallup and his colleagues recruited 143 undergraduates from the university. The team measured their grip strength and anatomical variables linked to attractiveness--shoulder-to-hip ratio for men and waist-to-hip ratio for women. Each participant also completed a survey about sexual history (including age at first sexual encounter and number of partners) and middle and high school bullying behaviors.
The female participants showed no correlations between HGS and sexual history or social behaviors, the team reports in this month's issue of Evolution and Human Behavior. But men with high HGS started having sex sooner, reported more sexual partners, and were more aggressive during high school (although not middle school). According to Gallup, asserting dominance over others and mating early and often are attributes that help pass along one's genes. "Our conclusion is that hand-grip strength is an honest indicator of fitness," he says, adding that whereas HGS is related to overall muscularity, the latter is "nowhere near” as closely linked to health as is HGS.
Other experts have varying takes on the results. Evolutionary psychologist John T. Manning of the University of Central Lancashire in the United Kingdom frets that the study did not control for the ethnicity of the participants; racial differences in average size could make the trends weaker or stronger in other sample groups. (According to Gallup, university regulations prohibit asking about race, even anonymously.)
Evolutionary psychologist Bill von Hippel of the University of Queensland in St. Lucia, Australia, says that the most exciting finding is the bullying link. Bullying is seen as "a product of low self-esteem and self-doubt," says von Hippel. These data suggest that, instead, it's a method of jockeying for status, chosen by strong men who excel at it.
/////////////////////////DOOMBS DTR-MTHR DTH =UFTOE=MANYD-BTO-KOSM
/////////////////////EVOLN PRODUCED 40 DIFFERENT TYPES OF EYES
///////////////////Does Day Care Help At-Risk Kids?
Tuesday, Nov. 06, 2007 By CAROLYN SAYRE
Gideon Mendel / Corbis
Article Tools
Reprints
Sphere
addthis_url = location.href;
addthis_title = document.title;
addthis_pub = 'timecom';
AddThis
RSS
var ad = adFactory.getAd(88, 31);
ad.setPosition(8)
ad.write();
In the ongoing debate over the merits of day care, a new study suggests that it offers a striking benefit for some children. Disadvantaged kids, researchers found, are significantly less likely to develop chronic aggressive behavior later in life if they receive regular care outside their home.
Related Articles
When Foster Teens Find a Home
When Sabreena Boyd was 11, she stood before the congregation at the New Jerusalem Full Gospel Church...
Two Mommies Is One Too Many
A number of social conservatives, myself included, have recently been asked to respond to the news t...
tiiQuigoWriteAd(755774, 1290760, 180, 200, -1);
The new paper, published in the November issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, was one of the first large-scale studies to examine the protective effects of "nonmaternal care" — day care or family-centered care provided by someone other than the mother — on preschool age children in the general population. Researchers at the University of Montréal followed 1,691 infants born in Quebec between 1997 and 1998, for a period of five years. During that time, investigators interviewed each mother annually; at 17, 30, 42, 54 and 60 months, the mothers were also asked to rate the frequency of her child's aggressive behavior.
While some past research has suggested that children who attend day care at a very young age may be more, not less, likely to develop behavioral problems, such as biting, kicking and hitting, the current study found the opposite effect — at least in at-risk children. Disadvantaged children — those born to mothers with a low level of education (less than a high school diploma) — who received an average of 21 hours a week of outside care were three times less likely to develop physically aggressive behavior than their homebound peers. In contrast, nonmaternal care had no effect on better-off children whose mothers had advanced levels of education (at least a high school diploma) — these kids were already at a low risk of aggression.
Researchers also found that earlier is better: Placing at-risk children in day care before nine months of age nearly doubled its protective effects. "People worry about the negative impact dayc are has on society," says Sylvana Côté lead author of the study and professor in the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Montreal. "But for disadvantaged children, it actually helps."
"Some children," says Cote, "are better off not being home with their mother."
Côté's study suggests a correlation between day care and a lower level of aggression, but it doesn't show a direct causal link — that is, it doesn't say why. She and her colleagues hypothesize that outside care gives at-risk children the kind of structured and nurturing environment that they may not get at home. Past studies suggest that children in less educated households are more likely to be exposed to poor parenting, poverty, low levels of stimulation and a disorganized home — risk factors that can lead to problems in adulthood, like unemployment, mental instability and continuing poverty. "Outside care serves as an early intervention," Côté says. "Placing them in another environment for a period of time each week is enough to prevent those negative effects."
The problem is, according to the study, children who were most likely to benefit from day care were also the least likely to receive it. Before kindergarten, 12% of disadvantaged children had never received day care, compared with just 5% of advantaged children. That statistic isn't likely to change anytime soon. "We need to pay more attention to educating parents about how to parent at a very young age," says Linda Smith, executive director of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies.
The authors of the current study hope their findings will help reshape the way we think about the child care industry. "[Day care] isn't a bad thing," Côté says. "In many ways, if the environment is structured, it can be a necessary preparation for school."
The authors of the current study hope their findings will help reshape the way we think about the child care industry. "[Day care] isn't a bad thing," Côté says. "In many ways, if the environment is structured, it can be a necessary preparation for school."
The take-home message of the current study, Smith says, is that childcare is multidimensional — and that the impact of outside care can be quite significant. "We often see childcare as a work support system, but it is also a platform for a child's development," she says.
tiiQuigoWriteAd(755774, 1290677, 600, 240, -
///////////////////////The Sunday Times of London reported 11 Nov 07:-Dozens admit aiding relatives commit suicideSarah-Kate Templeton, Health EditorMORE than 30 Britons have written statements confessing to helping friends or relatives to die at a Swiss euthanasia clinic as part of a test case to change the law.Details of the admissions will be submitted to the director of public prosecutions (DPP) as part of a legal challenge by a woman suffering from a progressive form of multiple sclerosis.She wants her husband to be allowed to accompany her to the Dignitas clinic in Zurich without the threat of prosecution and is seeking a statement from the DPP clarifying the law.Debbie Purdy, 44, from Bradford, says that unless she gets a guarantee that her husband, Omar Puente, will not be prosecuted for helping her to travel to Switzerland to commit suicide, she will be forced to take her life sooner than she would like while she is still capable of travelling alone.The Home Office has said helping someone to make arrangements to travel to Dignitas could constitute an offence under the 1961 Suicide Act, which states someone who aids the suicide of another will be liable to 14 years in jail. Decisions to prosecute in individual cases are at the discretion of the DPP.Purdy, a former marketing officer, said: “I want absolute clarity that my husband will not be prosecuted. If the DPP does not give this assurance, then I will need to go to Dignitas a long time before I want to die. I want to wait until the last possible moment, when I can no longer bear being alive, but I cannot do that while there is a chance my husband will be prosecuted.”Purdy, whose case is backed by Dignity in Dying, the campaign group, is asking the DPP to specify what would be considered to be aiding and abetting a suicide. It wants to know whether he could be prosecuted for booking her into the clinic, helping to push her wheelchair there or making her travel arrangements.Her solicitor, Saimo Chahal, a partner in the law firm Bind-mans, said: “The objective is to persuade the DPP to issue a policy statement saying that those assisting their loved ones to travel to Zurich to have a medically assisted suicide will not be liable to prosecution under Section 2 (1) of the Suicide Act.“A prosecution has never been brought against such a person despite some high-profile cases. People who do help their loved ones should not face the additional anxiety and distress that they may be prosecuted.”Last year Stefan Sliwinski, 35, of Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, was arrested after accompanying his mother Valere Sliwinski, 58, who had cancer and multiple sclerosis, to her assisted death in Zurich. He was never charged.Michael Irwin, a retired GP from Cranleigh, Surrey, has escorted three people to Dignitas and has been interviewed by the police three times. He has provided a witness statement to be used in the Purdy case.He said: “I support this attempt by Debbie Purdy to try to obtain a public statement from the DPP that those assisting with arrangements to visit Dignitas will not be prosecuted.”Ashley Riley, head of campaigns at Dignity in Dying, said: “The very least Debbie deserves is to win this case.”Over the past two weeks Chahal has gathered written statements from 36 Britons who have helped their friends or relatives to die at Dignitas. As more than 70 Britons have committed suicide at the Swiss clinic, further declarations are expected.The DPP said that Purdy’s request would be considered when it was received.
//////////////////////////The True Nature of “God”
Posted by: "paulwatts_dk" http://in.f84.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=paulwatts_dk@yahoo.co.uk&Subj=paulwatts_dk
Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:42 pm (PST)
The True Nature of "God":God created the Universe and all that's in it. This belief is taught toall followers of the "religions of the book", i.e. Judaism,Christianity and Islam. This "God" is an omnipotent and allpowerful being that has "always been and always will".We are taught that God created us in his own image. So Christians atleast have a mental image of God as a fatherly figure (God the Father)living in heaven. God the Father exists in a spiritual form according toChristian belief. This belief is fantasy and hardly plausible and is acomplete reversal of the real truth. This truth is that primitive menthemselves invented God in their own image as the only logicalexplanation for how the so called "Creation" came about.Never-the-less some kind of omnipotent force must exist in some form orother. What is the true nature of this "Omnipotent Matter". Itis certainly not "God The Father" invented by Man and wronglygiven credit for the creation of the universe?Matter can never be destroyed only its physical form changed. Alsomatter cannot be constructed out of nothing. Therefore, all matter mustalways have existed. This must also apply to the universe whichobviously is comprised of matter. Therefore the universe HAS ALWAYSEXISTED though its form may have altered. A "Big Bang" may havechanged the form of the Universe but certainly did not bring about itscreation.The Big Bang theory--widely regarded as the leading explanation for theorigin of the universe--posits that space and time sprang into beingabout 14 billion years ago in a hot, expanding fireball of nearlyinfinite density.This theory also suggests that after the force created by the Big Bangis spent everything in the Universe will stop expanding outwards & willcollapse inwards – the "Big Crunch". In other words theUniverse may well return to the way it was before the Big Bang tookplace.If this theory of a universal big bang followed by a big crunch isindeed correct then it certainly is an endless cycle with no beginningand no end. Therefore, the Universe did not "come into existence"because of the Big Bang - it merely changed its form.I "posit" therefore that the Universe has "always been and alwayswill".If the Universe has always existed then a creator, i.e. "God",was an unnecessary invention of man and anyone professing a belief inthe "Religions of the Book" is following not "God" but"Man" as it was primitive man who invented "God" in anerroneous attempt to explain creation.The Universe is the only omnipotent and all powerful force that couldperhaps be described as "God". However the Universe is not"God". God can be described as the Creator but the Universe wasnever created it has "always been and always will"!A spiritual "Almighty God" has no existence only a physical"Almighty Omniscience" , i.e. The Universe.Everything that exists, including the human race, is part of theuniverse and therefore part of this "Almighty Omniscience" .
///////////////////////Effects of anger last at least a week, study shows
By Roger Dobson
Published: 11 November 2007
Heather Mills needs to calm down. Outbursts like her infamous rant on GMTV may still be having an adverse effect on her health a week later, according to scientists.
New research shows that blood pressure increases during a bout of anger and that it still rises seven days later when the row is remembered. "Even after a week, there is no sign of any reduction of the effect,'' say researchers, who report their findings in the International Journal of Psychophysiology this week.
Anger has been linked to a higher risk of heart disease and other health problems. Research suggests that hardening of the arteries seems to advance faster in people who score high in anger and hostility tests.
One theory is that stress hormones constrict blood vessels, raise blood pressure and speed up the heartbeat. It had been thought that these effects would disappear when the row was over.
Researchers at the University of California and Columbia University looked at longer-term effects of anger triggered during a laboratory experiment with volunteers. "If cardiovascular responses are damaging to the cardiovascular system, then stressful events have the potential to continue to do harm long after they are ended."
/////////////////////
No comments:
Post a Comment