Archive for May, 2016

Breast Size Selection

on May 16, 2016 in Uncategorized Comments Off

Ph.D. Cavemen? I was just reading a book on sexual selection and breast size was examined. The science is this. Only one third of the actual size of a breast is for milk production or the mammary glands giving the classification of mammals. This is an average sample of mammary size. The other two-thirds of breast size is made up of fat. These are facts.

One speculation was that the fat was selected for so that the fat energy could be converted into milk in times of famine. This theory was debunked by an ugly fact. The breast is the last body part to surrender its store of fat. A female would stop lactating long before the breast fat started to get used. She would also likely die herself first. Fair enough. This fat has no benefit for lactating.

Another theory was speculated on instead. What if larger breast were selected for because they held more milk. Debunked again: they don’t hold more milk. All milk is produced by the one-third portion. It is not stored in the fat. They went on to say that looking like the breast would hold more milk might make fatter breast become a selectable trait. This was refuted by science with the statement that males would not select size without content. They sited an experiment with container shapes and sizes verses volume.

Does this mean that cavemen were Ph.D.’s in physics? They would have looked at breast size, measured the volume of milk in different size breast, compared quantity within sizes, and concluded that larger size had the same production volume as smaller size breasts? I wonder which caveman got the Nobel Prize for this.

The next theory is that just because breast looked more attractive the larger they are, then beauty would win the day. This was refuted by todays standard breast sizes. Most women do not have overly voluptuous breast. The mammary size is just as large as in bigger breast; they just don’t contain as much fat. A long argument was made and nothing was settled in the definitive.

What about treating cavemen as cavemen. They had no way of knowing that larger—fattier— breast did not hold more milk. They were just cavemen after all. Perhaps selection for women with larger breast was a means to ensure that their offspring had more to drink. After all, having more and looking like you have more are two different things. If you thirst and had a choice to drink water from a large cup or a smaller cup, without the means of measuring for quantity, which one would you choose? If the two cups were not transparent and the small cup was full, but the second cup was only half full how could you know this without first drinking?

Selecting for a larger cup size would select for fat storage as an advantage for mating, whether it had any advantage or not. Just as long as it looked like an advantage, desire for that trait would occur.

Every theory must be testable and falsifiable. If actual milk production was a measure, then mammary size could and would have been selected for. Breast would be larger, but without the fat. This did not happen. Fat was selected for. Larger breast looking like they held more milk seems to be the answer that best fits the question.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

Homonyms are words that are pronounced the same, but have different meanings. They can be either spelled the same as in tear—rip something apart, or tear—water droplets produced by the eye. This type can be accounted for by pronouncing the word differently regardless of spelling and is of little interest in the evolution of language. Writing has to do with the evolution of writing. Spelling two words the same with completely different meanings is acceptable when they are not pronounced the same.

They can be spelled the same, pronounced differently, and be derived from the same meaning or root word. Minute is one such word. It can be pronounced as (my nute) meaning small unit of space—read a small object or part of an object—or a subject as in: all of the minute details. Minute can also be pronounced as (min it) and refers to a small quantity of time—as apposed to year, month, week, day, hour, and then minute—small in comparison. Both mean small units, one of space and one of time. As far as the evolution of language is concerned, it is not hard to see any connection with spacetime on the larger scale. Pronounce minute one way for space and the other way for time, but keep the spelling the same. (The Brain Relativity thing!)

Then there is the case of more than one word sounding the same, but spelled differently. Two cases I will examine here: two, too, and to; there, their and they’re.

The number two caries more then one factual meaning. It can mean the second number in counting or be the name of the second number in counting 1 2 3… Another meaning can be derived as addition to. If you have one stick, then adding one stick to it makes both the name of the second number and the additional part of plus one. Perhaps a sentence would make this clear.

One stick, plus “two it” add one stick making two sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it three sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it four sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it five sticks. I know! This seems strange, but quite possibly true. Two taken as a second step in adding at every stage. Writing, being secondary to language, would demand it be spelled differently. Writing that sentence would become: Adding one stick “to” another stick produces arithmetic. It would also produce “I am going ‘to’ the store” as a means of adding yourself to a different location. You one, plus location two, in addition—terminology presented as being spelled to. To the this, or to the that, as adding place instead of objects being counted.

Too is the easier one to explain over to. Too can be used synonymously with: also, and, further, moreover, and other words meaning “in addition to.” Too many, then would be interpreted as “adding more than needed” and could be examined/treated as two many. Too few could be treated as two few, meaning the addition of more was not enough. I am going too would be treated as I am going two, making a second, third, or fourth addition the group “going” wherever they are going.

If you think this is the stupidest thing you have ever heard, then ask yourself this: would I have ever noticed that he was not using the proper spelling of the word two, too, or to if I were just hearing the words? Speaking, they would have all sounded the same, thus homonym, and my brain would have known the difference in how they were meant intuitively. I could “say” that I went two the store two get two candies and my brother came two. Your brain would hear it correctly! The grammar police would not be pleased of writing it that way. To sort these out intuitively they might just carry the same root meaning and work parallel to sense of the word or tense of the word. Think two, too, and to; run, ran, running, plus proper noun.

To clear up what is meant by intuitively, we need to examine tense and sense of the words. I will use the second example for this purpose: there, their and they’re. All three words are spacetime relative. “There” is a place in spacetime. They’re, or they are, taken two ways. Are, is a place in spacetime, or literally existence as a sense and tense. They, is a singling out of objects or subjects, also spacetime related. “They’ out of everyone else! Their, is also a singling out of spacetime identical to “there” in place, but of persona possession instead, indicating ownership of the spacetime.

Intuitively, you would understand that spacetime pinpointing was involved in this word group. Context would be taken into account automatically, and you would derive which tense or sense the speaking of the word pertained to. There, place in space or time. Their, direct persona (ownership) in/of place or time. They’re, persona (they) in tense of time (are) indicating present tense continuum. Since these words are all spacetime related they can all sound the same as context can determine sense and tense based on the innate holistic concept and intuition.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved


Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: