>So, I suggest that there was additional space necessary for
>lc-fa synthesis.

I understand that, but the size of breasts has nothing to do with the
size of the actual glands that produce milk.  All mammary glands are
basically the same size and vary according by whether the female is
lactating or not, they do not vary widely from female to female, no
matter what her cup size.  Breast size has to do with the varying amount
of fat surrounding the actual glands.  All human stomachs are basically
the same size, whether they have fat bellies or flat ones.


>>"Breasts" are the fatty
>>tissues surrounding the mammary glands in human females.

>So, women, who's breast is not only fat may please rise their hands.

The human breast is composed of milk ducts, glands and tubules
surrounded by fatty tissue.  There are thousands of diagrams and
anatomical drawings of them to be found online on medical websites.


>Tumors for example are normally not found in fat tissue.
>But in mammal tissue there are.
>If you proove breasts are fat only, I take back my theories.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - human breasts are made up of both milk glands,
ducts, and tubules that are surrounded by fatty tissue.  All human women
have 'about' the same amount and size of milk glands, ducts and tubules.
They only become larger when lactating.  The factor that DOES come into
play as to actual "Boob size" is the amount of fatty tissue surround
these glands.  This is determined by estrogen and progesterone levels
during puberty - these hormones control something called alpha
adrenoreceptors, which are the receptors in the fat cell walls that tell
it whether or not to store fat.  Increased estrogen causes more of these
alpha adrenoreceptors to form on the cell walls and more fat to be
stored.  Estrogen and progesterone are released in high amounts during
adolescence - which causes the breast tissues to store fat.  It is also
released in high amounts during pregancy.  

Your field research aside - I have owned an actual pair of working
breasts for about 24 years now and I am very familiar with how they work
and what they are comprised of.


>Visual trigger, so far so good.
>But what shape should end up to be such a trigger?

Butt shaped - which before we became bipedal WAS the target.  Animals -
including humans before they became civilized and decided to talk during
sex - use rear entry almost exclusively.  BUTTS were the target, so
BUTT-shaped would be the visual trigger.


>"Well" formed certain shapes display actual prosperity and youth.

Ah!  You're giving a great deal of credit to the discrimination of the
male mammal!  Females give more credence to prosperity and youth than
males.  Males tend to just spray seed and hope for the best.  :)  Sperm
is a pretty cheap commodity and males can afford to have a few seed land
on fallow ground.  I do NOT mean this in a sexist or demeaning way -
HONEST. It's a numbers game.  


>Blue eyes for example.
>I once read that this attribute was thought to have developed as
>a mating signal in an enviroment with little other differentiations.
>Like the far north (shapes under a coat).
>Cheers, A.


As a green-eyed human (also rare), I have to state that (hu)man IS an
animal, but a very, very complicated one in some ways.

:)

Fawn