The height one is still a matter of debate as far as I'm aware.
the beauty of evolution is that the timescale thing might not be the case at all, we could be looking at dormant systems within the cells for an almost instantaneous change in some situations.

the one thing that is certain right now, and one of the most important bits of work Dawkins did before he stopped being a proper scientist and dedicated his life to pointless fundy-baiting, is that all bets are off in terms of what we should consider "evolutionary pressures" on humanity. This is where the idea that we've stopped evolving comes from - not because the "real" rules of the game have changed, but the rules as far as mainstream understanding of the game goes certainly have.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:49, 2 replies)

Increase in size is not evidence of evolution.
It merely means that the local conditions have changed, and that the current generation has adapted to them. In Japan's case, a large increase in the consumption of animal protein and dairy products.

It works the other way: the population of Argyll, Sutherland and the Western Highlands were the tallest people in Europe on average in 1900. The ones who migrated to Glasgow lost up to 8 inches in average height, due to poor nutrition. Yet their cousins, many of whom lived less than 40 miles remained tall.
(all my scars face forward possesses 2.5% of a hyperalloy combat chassis, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 18:21, closed)

A person's height is a better predictor of career progression than their sex.
Not that upper management are any more likely to have children, mind you.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:03, closed)