Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists
T&B Schmal (schmal@firstnethou.com)
Wed, 10 Jul 1996 21:47:50 +0000
In article <31DB42FC.2D23@chattanooga.net>, Wallace Neslund
<morbidia@chattanooga.net> wrote:
> Now comes the speculation. [snip] Due to this, Homo females
> early on developed a large soft breast to act as a shock absorber to
> cushion the head and brain. -Wally
Thanks for a new approach to this. I was pretty burned out on this
subject last month but I'm glad to see it reappear with an interesting
hypothesis. My own old idea, that plainly visible breasts were a survival
("don't kill me, I'm a girl") signal for invading armies, is less good.
So I'll offer a new one: Human infants take much longer to wean than
chimps; breastfeeding might have lasted several years and possibly a small
breast might quit working after a year or so. This solves the puzzle of
why all breasts today aren't the same size - some groups (regions of
Europe & Africa) nursed longer than others (China).
- Tom Schmal
Karen wrote:
I do like the speculation regarding benefits for infant and or mother
better than the speculation that breasts developed as a sexual selection
factor. It could be that I, being female am biased and would simply
prefer that type of scenario!
I can hardly believe you said that, Karen. I'm sure it's true, but it's a
rare thing to hear a sentiment like that from a girl these days. -Tom
|