Evolution
 

Is there a reason for the male attraction to breasts? Someone suggested that shortly after the species 'learned' to walk upright, the female sex (now with it's genitalia not easily visible from behind) developed larger breasts to be an openly visible prompt to their sexuality (to mimick their posteriors). This is not the case with other primates, where female breasts only swell marginally for lactation.

Also it's quite likely there was a water stage in our evolution, similar to that of a seal. Evidence of this is our webbed thumb and our streamlined hairs, also not found on other primates.

There's a book called The Human Animal that explains this better.

ME LIKE HEAP BIG FIRM BREASTS!
;o)

------------------
death (dêth)
n. [list=1] [*]The act of dying; termination of life.[*]The state of being dead.[*]The cause of dying: Drugs were the death of him.[*]A manner of dying: a heroine's death.[*] Often Death. A personification of the destroyer of life, usually represented as a skeleton holding a scythe.[*]Bloodshed; murder. Execution.[*]Christian Science. The product of human belief of life in matter.[*]Law. Civil death.[*]The termination or extinction of something: the death of imperialism.[/list=a]

..:: Reaper of Souls ::..
..:: :):)Distilled Net :):):)::..

I don't really care how they came about They are pretty damn good no matter what the reason for them being there is :p

They're supposed to be good.

Its so youve got somthing to look at when youre talking to women


<size=0.5> Last nights family guy was definatly one of the best

Think you hit the nail on the head endymion.

It also has to do with lactation, the bigger the breast are -> more milk -> healther offspring (not that that matters these days with formula ).

And if you ain't attracted to breast's, there isn't many other differences between between male/female -> hard to have offspring if you're gay -> hence removed from genepool (that don't happen much either with serogate(sp) mothers)

Also it is(was? ) males who were the dominate sex, so we chose what the modern women looks like, it stands to reason we'd choose features that we found appealing.

and don't get me started on doctors and vaccinations

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 15 July 2000).]

Anyone seen Me, Myself and Irene?
Hheheheee. There's some breasts in that.

Or simply a whole lot of guys with issues concerning their mothers.

Just my opinion, but, I reckon that because our society has this 'conditioned' idea that female secondary? genitalia should remain covered, coupled with testosterone, and a natural curiosity, we ('most' males) are attracted to that particular part of a females anatomy.

Evolution is a load of bake beans.

There is no missing link, and it cannot be found, because it doesnt exist.

Human jewls have been found in tar pits, at and above dinosaur bones found in the same pit.

Think about it people.

PK if you want to believe that that's fine, but tar pits have been around an awfully long time and they tend to have a long lifespan. They're also a convectional fluid complex. If you think things are going to stay put in that you're missing some facts.

Racks are great. They look good, feel good, and are very useful. It's just a shame they can't be removed for playing pool/snooker. They damn well get in the way.

------------------
[email protected]

I hope you perverts don't come on to me when I go to the pool, seeing that I have breasts. Oh btw, I am a man :P

EVOLUTION!
hmmm me thinks it has already passed me by
can anyone else bark at the moon??
instinct is where its at baby!

Fuck, i dont believe Evolution, i mean how can a hopping monkey suddenly over a period of time, start to walk up right, loose hair, and start to speak like a human, i mean just doesnt sound right to me.

And if it was true, why do we have like 20 different species of monkeys today, which still hop around, full of hair, and go o uh o eeeeee

There we go, some logical thinking from hyper.

The monkeys did not evolve.

We did not evolve.

Out of all the dinosaur bones and things of such like, how come they have not come up with $6 worth of evidence, to support this bs evolution theory?

Why is there not half human monkeys walking around?

Your a very stupid person, if you think we were once apes or monkeys.

Hyper: Genetic mutations. The successful ones stay, unsuccessful ones don’t get very far.

Oh hell, here we go again.

My two cents then: To all the heretics out there, go read Darwins Theory of Evoulotion, and then come back when you know what you're arguing against.

------------------
SRWOFB; where nothing is anything.

It amazes me how anyone can read a book, and belive it rather than their own common sence.

PK: $6 worth of evidence? There is so much evidence that a lifetime of study wouldn't get you halfway through it. And that evidence isn't going to come knocking on your door just because you havn't seen it, which I imgaine explains it's absence from your life.

When you see evolution in action, it's so powerful it's scary. It defies your mind and beggars belief - the chances seem far too preposterous, but it's happening in front of your eyes.
You might also be interested to know (as it sounds like you're unaware) that the emergence of a new, reproductively isolated species from an old one by evolutionary processes has been seen both in the wild and in the lab, in several different species.

You might also want to cut down on unnecessary use of antibiotics. While people killed by new strains of bacteria might not constitute $6, you could do it anyway to be culturally sensitive to those of us who don't use our common sense :-)

Heh.

Germs remain germs, people remain people, apes remain apes, nothings changed.

Soleil-Raid: Wider reading doesn't often mix well with flat-earthers and creationists. I guess that's kinda your point, but don't count on it happening anytime soon, unless you swap the dustjacket with that of the King James :-)

PK: Read it and you might discover that your common sense has changed it's mind - that there were so many things you weren't considering that your common sense now suggests it _might_ be possible, and perhaps an open mind might be a sensible policy.

Common sense has been found to be in greater error before.

P.K's right for once, just look at the Flintstones.



------------------
All life is but a sensory illusion that gives experience and learning to Thought.
The only reality is Thought Itself.

PK: Nothing has changed? So there were always people for infinite billions of years before you were born? Or do you think that things have in fact changed, but in some non-evolutionary way?

PK: Try having a look at www.talkorigins.org and remember that just because you can't or don't want to understand something doesn't mean it isn't true.

Yep, from the start of man, there was man as there is now.

And man has not been around for infinitey, and man was around at the same time as dinosaurs, he was around at the start of all life on earth.

Not itrested in posting anymore, you academics or know it alls just dont get the picture.

PK: That's quite an impressive load of old bollocks you're talking there, even by your lofty standards

Let me guess, you're also a member of the Flat Earth society?

Pk: While I can't say I agree with the reason you gave for not posting anymore, I know the sentiment and I think I'll join you.

IOW, this is me signing off also.

Hahahaha! Yeah ok PK whatever.

I've noticed a habit of PK's of deciding something's a fact and refusing to budge on it, because his logic dictates that there can be no other possibility, so don't bother arguing with him. It'll just wind PK and those who disagree with him up to no avail. Believe me, I've done this and got to the point where I was furious...like the Borg, resistance is futile...

To those who agree with PK, but are a little more open to alternate views, it wasn't a case of a monkey suddenly standing up and walking like a man. It took a very long time over generations. A gene mutation would occur that happened to enhance survival probability, and therefore resulted in a more efficient and dangerous "version", e.g. longer, straighter legs, meaning fluid running motion was easier, leading to a more efficient hunting machine, meaning more likely to survive. The difference may have been subtle, and not terribly noticeable until those who carried similar traits interbred, producing more and longer legged specimens. It's similar to the way modern breeds of dogs or cats are developed; by nature/the breeder taking advantage of certain genetically determined traits. This may be a certain fur colour in a cat, or a trait that enhances the likelihood of surviving to reproduce in an evolving species in the wild. That's where the term survival of the fittest comes from. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen *Rachael Hunter simper*

------------------
[email protected]

fuck me - another evoluation vs creationism (almost) posting.....


gad - wake uyp and smell the drunken science! EVOLUTIAONT!

------------------
Holiday travels pimpage™

The reason there are still monkeys/apes running abouts is they're evolved for that climate/enviroment, so unless one of you religous types want to take their place swinging in the trees & running around going ohhh ehh ahhh etc and eating each others faeces, id suggest you drop that argument.

As for their being no proof of a missing link , i don't see any physical evidence of god existing and yet people still justify believing in him/her/it.

The theory of evolution has been around for over 200 years, it is the most contested theory of all time and yet it still prevail's.
Not to sound like something out of the bible, but truth always prevails, and science is the search for truth.

my 2c (im spent also)

Oh and survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean the next fittest die out. The big cats are a good illustration of this; they fill different niches in the ecosystem even though they're closely related, due to diversification through evolution.

------------------
[email protected]

My all-time favourite arguement against evolution was one presented by The Onion.

"Ain't no way any of my ancestors were monkey-fuckers!"



I mean, how can you argue with that

When we talked the issue of Evolution in science.....there was one Christian guy in the class who kept going "No no no you're wrong, Adam and Eve....." blah blah bloody blah. The science teacher ended up telling him to 'Shut the hell up.' And fair enough too.
Nobody knows the complete story, but hell, at least put some thought into it before you say 'No no that's not possible.' As you'll end up arguing with people who have put some thought into it, and look much like PK does now. Very stupid
Christians seemed to be used to taking this position though.

A conversation about boobies goes horribly wrong. :/

If people aren't evolving, why is there a difference between races of people, who had (aren't now, thanks to easy international travel) been separated from the rest? Why is the average person about six inches taller now than they were four hundred years ago?

Why is there only 1.1% genetic deviation between humans and some species of chimpanzee?

GRRRRRRR

/me slaps PK

Humans did NOT evolve from monkeys. If you know anything about evolution, the most basic part of it is that todays primates/apes and humans share a common ancestor.


Why are people black/white/(i use this term loosely) yellow? Why do some have flatter, fat noses and others long thin ones?

Over a fucking long period of time, animals adapt to their environment. Pale skin, thinner noses are good in a colder climate - hence those sexy Swedish babes ... People who say 'i can't belive monkeys turned into man' have no idea how long it took. Humans are gradually getting taller, we are evolving mentally and physically. Our chin is a results of evolution - since our mouths are getting smaller we no longer have a prognathism... wisdom teeth are also tied in there.. we used to have space for them, now the majority of people have them pulled out... gah...

Endymion: General height increases over the last 400 years, and particularly the last 200, have nothing to do with evolution. It's all about diet. Using England as an example here, until the middle of the 19th century most people had a poor diet that was very low in protein. This had the effect of stunting their growth. Remember, they didn't have the refrigeration and transportation techniques for meat and produce we have today. It spoiled very rapidly. As a result, fresh and edible meat and fish was very expensive (and as a result, rarely eaten) for most people.

I've read that there were actually marked differences in height between country and city dwellers, since the farmers had the capacity to provide their own sources of meat and produce, while the city dwellers were not able to. 200 years ago, the average height of a woman in England was about 4'11". Today it's about 5'5". Quite interesting stuff

Racks guys, racks....

Keep your eyes on the ball...or boob, as the case may be. You're making Endy anxious

------------------
[email protected]

Changes in diets and climates are one of the main causes of evolution, fool.

And basically what Whiplash said.

Think of the primate period of our evolution as a tree, there's the trunk, which could be considered a common ancestor, and then on one branch you have an earlier species of us (homo erectus/habilus/sapiens), and on another branch are monkeys and stuff. Obviously things which evolved from a closer ancestor are going to bare more likeness to us.

Female breasts as we know them (heh) on the other hand are (possibly) a direct result from some time in our evolution where we met criteria that required them.

Evolution is a very gradual process of adaptation that can take thousands, even millions of generations for any noticeable differences to occur. It doesn't happen in a dozen generations because some species experiences an improvement in its diet. LOL!

All that's happened is that we're now, as a rule, growing to our full potential because we aren't being hampered so much by poor diet. So, we aren't getting taller, it's just that our recent ancestors were shorter than they were supposed to be

To be blunt they serve a purpose: They're for lactation to feed infants, and they're also fat repositories but that's just utilisation of en existing organ. They serve one purpose: food. They're a feature of every mammal, but I suspect due to loss of fur, a woman who had a propensity to carry subcutaneous fat due to genetic mutations passed down, and had decent repositories would have been more likely to survive cold and famine, and therefore was more likely to pass on her genes that coded for that.

------------------
[email protected]