John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clearly evolution selected for ancestors that could reproduce more quickly than other primates. Human social organization also reinforced this because childcare could then be shared within the group.

Human females don't go into season (the males OTOH are continually 'in season') and they can fall pregnant almost immediately after giving birth during their subsequent monthly oestrous cycles. Hence, it makes more sense to keep the breasts in a state of continual readiness (enlarged) with only a small additional increase in size due to milk production while the offspring are suckling. Other large primates have much longer reproductive cycles (i.e. from one conception to the next), so it does not make sense to invest energy into carting around enlarged breasts when not pregnant - and this would also be difficult while swinging from trees. It should not go unnoticed that large primates are far more sedentary during pregnancy.

I some how doubt the selection of breast size has much to do with positional optics! It probably happened the other way around.

Disclaimer: this is entirely the opinion of Bonsai.
 
Last edited:
Other primates indicate oestrous with swollen buttocks (think chimp or baboon).

Note that lactating monkeys don't have large breasts either. They are entirely for show in Homo Sapiens. And with 7 billion odd of us doing a very good job of it.

(note wife currently lactating so I have more up to date field notes than most of you 😛)

EDIT: note that the transition from tree swinging to bipedalism with the change in pelvis shape and move of vagina from back to front took an awfully long time to evolve.
 
Last edited:
Clearly evolution selected for ancestors that could reproduce more quickly than other primates. Human social organization also reinforced this because childcare could then be shared within the group.

Human females don't go into season (the males OTOH are continually 'in season') and they can fall pregnant almost immediately after giving birth during their subsequent monthly oestrous cycles. Hence, it makes more sense to keep the breasts in a state of continual readiness (enlarged) with only a small additional increase in size due to milk production while the offspring are suckling. Other large primates have much longer reproductive cycles (i.e. from one conception to the next), so it does not make sense to invest energy into carting around enlarged breasts when not pregnant - and this would also be difficult while swinging from trees. It should not go unnoticed that large primates are far more sedentary during pregnancy.

I some how doubt the selection of breast size has much to do with positional optics! It probably happened the other way around.

Disclaimer: this is entirely the opinion of Bonsai.

Nice story. But don't forget the attractiveness angle. Well-endowned females will find it easier to attract high-quality mates, and evolution does the rest. Peacock tails anyone?

Jan
 
Other primates indicate oestrous with swollen buttocks (think chimp or baboon).

Note that lactating monkeys don't have large breasts either. They are entirely for show in Homo Sapiens. And with 7 billion odd of us doing a very good job of it.

(note wife currently lactating so I have more up to date field notes than most of you 😛)

EDIT: note that the transition from tree swinging to bipedalism with the change in pelvis shape and move of vagina from back to front took an awfully long time to evolve.

No need for the swollen buttocks as an indicator of oestrus cycle in adult human females: unless pregnant, they are effectively 'in season'.

Anatomical changes you mention are the result of going from all 4's perambulation to bipedalism surely? From that follows copulatory behaviour . . . of course after a few million years of evolution.

Separately, I am also fascinated about why human brains are as big as they are - over 3x a chimps and the highest rate of encephalisation in the animal kingdom as far as I know. How? Why? Even our jaw and associated muscles had to evolve to accommodate the brain size (or was it vice versa?). Chimps and gorillas have their jaw muscles tied to the top of their cranium - our attached to sides. Evolutionary biologists speculate that this fundamental anatomical change allowed brain size to balloon in humans over a short period.
 
Read 'the naked ape' by Desmond Morris. Most of it is still valid. Ascent of man is still worth watching (if you remember it from first time round in the 70s and I can lend you the DVD). Although much has been discovered since then, not least developments in mitocondrial DNA sequencing the basics have not been overturned.

There was a series a couple of years ago 'your inner fish' which showed evolution from fish to man. Our ears were gills!

Ah there is a book of the series Your Inner Fish: The amazing discovery of our 375-million-year-old ancestor: Amazon.co.uk: Neil Shubin: 9780141027586: Books
 
Status
Not open for further replies.