Hi Anna, great comment, thanks for sharing, certainly is good to cover all bases. I've seen these reasonings before, they always fall down at the same hurdle, they are secondary benefits rather than primary driving forces.

For example, the fat storage. It's much more logical to store fat in the stomach or the rear end, rather than developing permanent breast tissue in the chest area due to the net negatives of the tissue in this area. For example, like said, breast cancer, back problems, and the massive hindrance to athleticism, which would have made the females extremely susceptible to predators.

In combination these factors make developing fat tissue in this area highly net negative, whereas in other areas it would have been net positive. That means there must have been another driving force, and the fat storage must have been a secondary benefit which came about due to the initial driving force.

The woman past childbearing age element is also secondary, as the cost again to develop something like permanent breasts just for post childbearing benefit would again be an enormous net negative, which means it could not have happened without an initial driving force.

This is where all the breastfeeding and childbearing arguments fall down when it comes to the development of permanent breasts. They are all secondary benefits, not primary driving forces. There needs to be a primary driving force that initially led to their development, that provides a net positive to outweigh the net negatives.

At current, based on how much sexual information that exists in breasts, it is hard to find a logical pathway outside of sexual information.

Don't get me wrong, there may be something that we do not yet know that may provide a net positive that could have been a primary driving force, but at present, the only primary driving force that seems logical is as a tool of sexual attraction.

Great comment again, Anna, thanks for sharing!