Re: Holloway/Morgan

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: gyoung1@ix.netcom.com: "Re: ATLANTIS"
• Previous message: Gerrit Hanenburg: "Re: New finds at Sterkfontein?"

Vincent-

\MFeldman77 (mfeldman77@aol.com) sez:
\` You quickly dismiss the importance of sex and bonding in the
\`evolution of hairlessness and fat deposition. Please consider this -
what
\`possible benefit would a primate have towards loosing the estrus? Why
\`would a species specifically evolve that requires constant sex between
\`partners in order to survive?
\this does not necessarily follow. Maybe the origin was to decrease
\the frequency of sex and therefor childbirth, an event which became
\steadily more hazardous for the mother as brain size increased, so
\that children would have a higher likelihood of receiving care for a
\longer period.

The point is that humans are highly unusual by having sex when the female
is not ovulating. This has obvious social implications. If receptors to
vasopressin and oxytocin, which are released in large amounts during sex,
are related to manogamy, this would further support the social
implications.

\`. I doubt anyone would argue that soft skin promotes affection.

\Heck, I will. That's totally cultural.

Oh, please.

Mark Feldman
St. Louis, Mo.

• Next message: gyoung1@ix.netcom.com: "Re: ATLANTIS"
• Previous message: Gerrit Hanenburg: "Re: New finds at Sterkfontein?"