The ability of science writers to misrepresent what is known about cause and effect by biologists and attribute emotion to song in birds, visual input in some species, tactile input in others, and pheromones in insects defies common sense.
The combination of chemicals in the mixture and the effects of the mixture on women’s behavior enables us to make the claim that the mixture is a mixture of human pheromones.
Across species comparisons of epigenetic effects on genetically predisposed nutrient-dependent and hormone-driven invertebrate and vertebrate social and sexual behavior indicate that human pheromones also alter the development of the brain and behavior via the same molecular mechanisms.
Patisaul et al (2012) makes it clearer the “The role of oxytocin, for example, must be explained in the context of how pheromones, food odors, and endocrine disruptors epigenetically effect sociosexual behavior.”
It is no fun to be ignored, but that seems to be a common problem for those who challenge theories, whether or not those theories make sense in the context of biological facts.
…chemical signals akin to species-specific pheromones are responsible for the ligand-receptor binding that enables the progression to colony formation as a more effective means of nutrient acquisition.
Do you think if I told others that pheromones are like sugar (instead of spices) they would develop a taste for learning about what’s required to link sensory input – like food odors and pheromones- directly to hormones like GnRH and animal behavior?
I’ve dismissed evolutionary theory that involves random mutations, and used the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input on OR variants, which provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans,