In article ,
Angie Austin  wrote:
>
>I've always suspected that selection through preferential breeding
>played a role as well...Homo Sapiens is a very visual-oriented
>species, and our species male ancestors probably found larger breasted
>females more desirable for some reason (much as they do now).  This
>resulted in the larger-breast females breeding more, and also breeding
>with the stronger more dominant males than their smaller breasted
>cousins.  Over time, this eventually resulted in human females tending
>to have larger breasts than their ape ancestors, not for biological
>necessity, but simply because the males found them more attractive.

For a male, being found attractive is everything.  Getting laid is
the first measure of reproductive fitness, taking care of your children
is nice but secondary.

That isn't true for females, however.  For females the selection almost
entirely works in terms of staying alive, having viable children, and
choosing males with desirable traits.  Women can always get laid; there
simply is no issue of her not having children because she is unatractive.
There will *always* be some male horny and desparate enough to loan her
some sperm.  (This can easily be confirmed through casual observation,
anywhere teenagers hang out.) Males will screw the attractive women if
they can, and then also go and screw the unattractive women too.  This
is why ridiculous "display" features are always found on male birds,
deer, etc.  and the females are rather plain.  Are there any other
examples, ouside of humans, of females having an unnecessary and possibly
detrimental display feature to attract males?

-- 
Please reply to:               | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com       |  for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled    |                   -- Joan Pontius
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/28/04 6:06:56 AM