Refuting Evolution

[Zen Badger]

I don't mean that, I mean ridiculous, nonsense that may in the future become good or bad
for example a mutated eye in yous as*

Well I took neutral to mean mutations that are neither bonuses or hindrance but merely there. That is a example that occurs in everyone. Another good example is women's breasts as why should a women develop mammary glands before pregnancy when no other mammal does this. Howeveryou could try rreading the other examples I give you.

Actually I can think of a very good reason for why women develop breasts .

Sexual preference is a powerful mechanism in driving evolutionary development.(think of birds of paradise)

And there is no disputing that breasts are a powerful secondary sexual characteristic.

Therefore women that did grow breasts early were more likely to be selected by males and breed.

Therefore passing that gene to their daughters. After enough generations every female would have it.

People don't realise how much of an influence sexual selection has in evolution.

The classic being the giraffes neck. People assume that it evolved to allow giraffes to reach higher leaves but have you ever watched male giraffes fight during mating season?

They club each other with their necks. The one with the longer neck usually being the winner and getting to breed.

And passing on the successful gene for long necks.

[Cyberman]

Let's not forget the peacock's tail as well, nor many other sexual display characteristics (including my own prodigious attribute) that you females made possible. And necessary. And fun.

Did anybody found the millions and millions of mutated fossils to prove the UN-intelligent evolution?

Well, clearly we found one mutated fossil that proves the unintelligence of evolution-deniers.

[Esquilax]

I don't mean that, I mean ridiculous, nonsense that may in the future become good or bad
for example a mutated eye in yous as*

And here we go again: since you refuse to actually define what you're looking for in anything but the vaguest of terms, you're able to move the goalposts back no matter what you're presented with. The ultimate dishonest tactic.

[Cyberman]

'We' found Comfort and Cameron's Crocoduck - will that do?

[Zazzy]

Actually I can think of a very good reason for why women develop breasts .

Sexual preference is a powerful mechanism in driving evolutionary development.(think of birds of paradise)

And there is no disputing that breasts are a powerful secondary sexual characteristic.

Therefore women that did grow breasts early were more likely to be selected by males and breed.

Therefore passing that gene to their daughters. After enough generations every female would have it.

People don't realise how much of an influence sexual selection has in evolution.

The problem with this idea is that to all other mammals, breasts are a sign of a nursing- and therefore reproductively less available- female. There is no reason why this wouldn't also have been true of our ancestors. Breasts have no sexual attraction to any other species. It is more reasonable to hypothesize that the attraction to breasts developed after the breasts themselves.

It's still an open question.

[Whateverist]

Actually I can think of a very good reason for why women develop breasts .

Sexual preference is a powerful mechanism in driving evolutionary development.(think of birds of paradise)

And there is no disputing that breasts are a powerful secondary sexual characteristic.

Therefore women that did grow breasts early were more likely to be selected by males and breed.

Therefore passing that gene to their daughters. After enough generations every female would have it.

People don't realise how much of an influence sexual selection has in evolution.

The problem with this idea is that to all other mammals, breasts are a sign of a nursing- and therefore reproductively less available- female. There is no reason why this wouldn't also have been true of our ancestors. Breasts have no sexual attraction to any other species. It is more reasonable to hypothesize that the attraction to breasts developed after the breasts themselves.

It's still an open question.

Interesting idea. I was agreeing with Zen but you have a point. Then again, when we look for what features the opposite sex is drawn to in other animals you sure find an odd assortment of things.

Perhaps you're both right. Maybe it isn't the breasts themselves which were originally the focus of attraction but rather the woman's stored body fat. In lean times a woman with the reserves to bear a child might have been an adaptive sexual attractant. The breasts are one place women put on body fat. Later, the breast itself in all its wonderful variation may have been singled out for special attention.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that breasts are hot, but not quite so hot as a shapely ass.

[Zazzy]

Here's an interesting article about evolution of ornamentation in females. It doesn't directly discuss breasts, but nicely summarizes the problems with thinking of sexual selection on the same way for males and females.

[Doubting Thomas]

All this talk about breasts makes me want to go do some field research at Hooters.

[Zazzy]

And another good article, which on p.2 summarizes the current hypotheses on the breast question. Damn, I'm good at avoiding the articles I'm supposed to be reading.

**@whateverist- your last post was fully in line with the current theories, so good on you.

[Lemonvariable72]

And another good article, which on p.2 summarizes the current hypotheses on the breast question. Damn, I'm good at avoiding the articles I'm supposed to be reading.

**@whateverist- your last post was fully in line with the current theories, so good on you.

They are even harder to explain in the context of a compotent and intelligent designer. That said I like boobs.