[extropy-chat] Re: on Spike's big ass theory

[Kevin Freels]

Lets try grouping several messages to make a single large post:

>
> It may be *slightly* more subtle than it appears, for
> a female chimp's breasts enlarge noticably when they
> are fertile and receptive to mating.  The alpha male
> chimp might look around and see who is in the mood.  By
> choosing those, he would increase his chances of offspring.
>
> In humans, the breasts are enlarged always, so the
> female appears fertile and receptive 24/7.  Coloring the
> lips red might also add to this perception, causing
> stable monogamous pairs to form, which increases
> the stability of a human group.
>
> spike
An intersting unique human feature to note is how our women have evolved to
hide their "readiness". Even their menstrual cycles have moved to the point
where they are infertile during the only time that they show any outward
display of fertility.
This allows a female human to have sex with many males at many times and not
get pregnant. Men may never have learned woman's cycles until recently (last
20,000 years or so). If this is the case, then I see an interesting
scenario: Women would have sex with men whom were socially important during
their menstrual cycle. That man would think he was getting her pregnant and
form a monogomous relatinship with her. Meanwhile, she is off mating with
her REAL choice of mate during ovulation. The real choice would be someone
more attractive physically, yet socially less important such as a younger
male with more stamina and a better immune system. She would bear his child,
but the child would be raised by the other male and be provided all the
fruits of his social status.


I have always wondered what would cause a species to give up speed in
exchange for stamina. In order for a trait to become normalized in a
population, that trait has to be useful and contribute to survival. What use
is long distance running when you can;t outrun your predators? The only
thing I can think of would be a huge, fast migration where only those with
the most stamina would survive. This would then have to be repeated over
hundres or even thousands of generations. This would hold to an in and out
of Africa many times theory, which I am OK with, but at that speed? What
could cause such a thing? I am more inclined to think that we were long
distance walkers with stamina first. Running probably evolved with it for
the short distance sprints necessary to get away from predators since going
back to all fours was not an option. Long distance running would only be a
neat little trick that we could do because of the combination we already had
of long distance  walking and sprinting abilities. I seriously dount that
long distance running in itself was selected for.

As for Spike's Big Ass Theory, I think it is at least partially true. I am
guilty of selecting for the same reason and I am sure my daughters will
inherit the trait from their mother. :-)

Kevin