/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12151169
>I'm saying having breasts is one among many signals that a woman is going to perform well in reproduction
I agree that it is now a signal of fertility like you say, but it would have had to develop into that for no particular reason(disregarding use for lying). This doesn't make sense when you consider that breasts are cumbersome and disadvantageous. Why would a disadvantageous adaptation, which serves no particular purpose not adequately served by another, persist and become near omnipresent? The first female to develop breasts would be at a total disadvantage to every other female, especially considering males would find her less attractive, unless you consider the possible of breasts being used as a social ruse. Atleast with peacocks, their plume would at first be mostly neutral as an adaption, aside from the calorie expenditure, but breasts are just bad as a fertility marker. Breasts have a purpose, and that purpose is deception. This is why only the most intimately social of mammals [humans] ever developed them