[quote Hippiechick162]@SmellsLikeWineIGuess it talks about children looking like their father and it being due to increased health benefits. Which is an evolutionary trait not necessarily the first born and it is the effects by the time they're 1. Did you read it all or just the abstract? I'm not arguing just showing that there is scientific correlation to the reasons children look like their father
[/quote]
I get that a child looking like its father is correlated with health benefits, including bonding. That makes sense.
But I’m still not seeing any scientific evidence, as is often trotted out on threads like this, that, e.g. first-borns look like their fathers, and it’s nature’s way of ensuring men don’t reject their off-spring.
Because first-borns don’t necessarily look like their fathers, do they? And why does it just apply to first-borns? Why would they be any less doubtful about the paternity of subsequent babies?
And - what of miscarriages? Many women experience one, or even multiple miscarriages, before giving birth to a live baby. This is very common.
So, in fact, the first-born is very often not the first baby. But, still, it’s going to look like its father, just because it happens to be the first baby out?