> From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s881312.htm > > > > Colour vision means pheromones unnecessary > > Tuesday, 17 June 2003 > > > > Female Old World primates � like orangutans � use sexual displays to > > indicate they are ready for mating > > > > Forget about using those expensive sprays to try and attract the opposite > > sex � humans don't have the ability to detect pheromones, and American > > research concludes it is due to our colour vision. > > > > The research, undertaken by Assistant Professor Jianzhi Zhang from the > > University of Michigan in the USA, involved a comparison of the genes of > > primates that can see colour and those that can't. It seems that males > > developing colour vision negated the need for pheromones to attract > > mates. > > > > What complete crap for science, or logic for that matter. This is a reverse > implication. U of M and J. Zhang need to be more carfull before they release > suggestive information as if it were ~real~ science.
This is real science. By real scientists. Somehow I don't think you are a scientist. > Actualy in Zhang's defense, it might be Danny Kingsley & ABC Science which > are at fault here, but how can you tell? > > We do have strogn evidence that females synch due to pherimones. Anicdotaly > every mate of a cyclical female knows on what days he is most likely to get > some. And that has nothing to do with pheromones. > How can you call an organ which does exist "vistigual" without showing why > you know it doesn't function. Especialy when there is so much anicdotal > evidecde to the contrary. Because of exhaustive testing by the scientific community? Because they've found that most of the genes that create this organ are pseudo genes (damaged, nonfunctional) in humans? Because most of the genes that code for scent (olfactory) are also pseudo genes? Because humans do not respond sexually to pheromones? Because smelling/stinking has been selected against for thousands of years? Anecdotes do not science make. > Simply becouse one sense is more importatnt than other doesn't necisarily > mean that the other does not still play a part. You are showing a complete lack of understanding in how science and evolution work. http://employees.csbsju.edu/lmealey/hotspots/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
