>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?


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.  



>For the theory that they would look like butts...
>A weak reason to develop mammary glands.

Mammary glands and breast are not the same thing.  All female mammals
have mammary glands - only human females have breasts.  All mammary
glands presumably (normally) create enough milk for the young.  Dogs
have no "breasts", yet can nurse up to 12 pups.  "Breasts" are the fatty
tissues surrounding the mammary glands in human females.  



>A good reason to develop good looking butts - as far as they are of
>evolutionary advantage. Which I could find much more for breasts.

It is found that many mammals respond to certain shapes as stimulus for
action.  For example - cats (both wild and domestic) are known for their
cruelty because they "play" with their prey.  It was discovered that it
was the visual stimulus of the shape of the prey's jaw and neck that was
their trigger to kill.  Apparently cats would "play" with their prey and
not be incited to kill until visually stimulated by that "shape".  

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.

Of course, all this is conjecture. :)


Fawn