On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:21:00 -0500, Fawn Bales <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>>Bigger ones will be able to synthesize more DHA.

>Only one problem - milk production is not related to breast size in any
>way.  The only difference between A's & D's is the bodyfat surrounding
>the milk glands.  Milk ducts and glands are the same size and in the
>same quantity in small breasts as in large breasts.

Ok, as far it's only about milk production.
The long chain fatty acids are need the work of the specialized
enzymes (d5d d6d elongases). Slow working enzymes.
I think it's reasonable to suppose that these enzymes need an adequate
space to work.

A given liver is able to synthesize a certain amount of DHA,
as is necessary for the adult brain.
A double sized liver probably can make a bigger amount.
So, for childred it makes sense,as it *is* found:
specialized tissue of the placenta and the mammary glands.

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


>Mammary glands and breast are not the same thing....
>"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.

I must say I know women, who's breasts *look* like
beeing predominately fat.

As from my personal field experience, (:-)) I would say:
fat is different. Very different.
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.

A good part of fat is of course what is necessary for fatty acid synthesis.

>Many think "shape" works as a sexual trigger for humans too, and before
>we became completely bipedal, it would have been the 'butt' shape.  We
>aren't nasally the sharpest kids on the savanah, so we would also need a
>visual trigger.

Visual trigger, so far so good.
But what shape should end up to be such a trigger?
I think in any way it must make some sense. The shape must be one
signaling some kind of healthyness or fitness for the interest.
"Well" formed certain shapes display actual prosperity and youth.

If we would start to fall in love with brown big spots on the skin
(sign of age and/or skin cancer) it might be working as a good signal,
but not one leeding to evolutionary success.

>Of course, all this is conjecture. :)

Of course, a game of thought.
There are some attraction signals which seem not to signal a particular
fitness - or a weakness.
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.