On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:45:04 -1000, Erik Hill <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>But why would breasts have sexual signalling power?  I've heard two
>theories, both insane, as far as I'm concerned:  One, that breasts
>"simulate" the butt, thus bringing the wonderful, exciting image of a
>butt right up to eye level (or closer, anyway) where it can be enjoyed
>by prospective mates (keeping in mind that "eye level" has changed over
>the years, as we now wander around on twos not fours), ...

Ok, so why have breasts sexual signalling power?

DHA - the brain building LC-EFA may be the answer.

Loren Cordain pointed out that there are 3 ways to provide for increased
DHA needs in humans - for the enlarging brain:
1) eat more preformed n3 fatty acids ala carnivores or marine mammals,
2) Increase gestation/lactation/growth periods,
3) increase the efficiency of the conversion of 18:3n3 to 22:6n3 in
placenta, mammary gland, liver  & brain

I suppose babies won't eat gazelle brains or 4 lbs of zebra meat.

So, the brain stuff DHA is made in placenta, liver, brain
and the mammary glands.
You call them boobs?
Bigger ones will be able to synthesize more DHA.
Females with larger m.glands will have fitter offspring, and males selecting
such females as well.
Isn't that a good evolutionary reason to have these unusual big items?

For the theory that they would look like butts...
A weak reason to develop mammary glands.
A good reason to develop good looking butts - as far as they are of
evolutionary advantage. Which I could find much more for breasts.

That all would illustrate that more DHA was beneficial maybe essential for
humans. At the same time, that babies didn't eat brains.

regards,

Amadeus