Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists
Richard Foy (rfoy@netcom.com)
Wed, 10 Jul 1996 21:32:02 GMT
In article <4rsdtq$rld@maze.dpo.uab.edu>, Karen <karen@uab.edu> wrote:
>rfoy@netcom.com (Richard Foy) wrote:
>
>
>As Richard stated befoe, it is an interesting speculation. Since
>breasts have so far left no evidence as to when they began in the
>fossil record, it will remain speculation for at least a while. I
>will add one little thing to the speculation about female breast
>enlargement in h.s.s. It is likely that if enlarged breasts was an
>adaptive feature of female h.s.s., that the evolution of such a trait
>did not hinge on one factor and probably had several contributing
>factors.
That makes a lot of sense to me.
>>:>
>I don't know about all infants but I have never seen a h.s.s. infant
>hold on to its' mothers' breasts. If it turned out that this was a
>factor in the development of enlarged breast tissue in h.s.s., it
>would have to be an incredible benefit for an older infant who might
>have the capacity to hold on to its' mothers' breasts and then I am
>not sure exactly what that benefit would be. It is not as though the
>baby could cling to its' mothers' breasts leaving the mothers' hands
>free while travelling.
When I read this speculation it didn't seem to reasonable to me that
infants could hold on to a mothers breasts either.
> However, I too, suspect that the benefit of the enlargenment of the
>breasts probably had something to do with benefit for the infants.
>
> Whatever we come up with on this speculation is only speculation but
>I do like the speculation regarding benefits for infant and or mother
>better than the speculation that breasts developed as a sexual
>selection factor though I can't discount that either. It could be
>that I, being female am biased and would simply prefer that type of
>scenario!
You admit the possibility of being biased. Excellent!!
>
>
>>:That makes a lot more sense to me than the breast devloped as a
>>:result of sexual selection.
>
>It does make sense if you consider what the primary benefit of breasts
>in female primates is in the first place. That is one of the reasons
>that I do believe that if indeed the breasts developed as an adaptive
>trait that it probably did have some benefit to h.s. infants.
>
>Will we ever know the answer to this type of question? Perhaps so.
>With the continuing research in genetics, it is possible. Until then,
>we continue to speculate.
And isn't it fun to speculate?
--
"The form is the content in motion, and the content is the form at
rest." --Northrup Frye
URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/udc.html Unity and Diversity
|