My comment: This reminds me of a reported incident from: Gibbons, D.L. (1989) Unusual case: Sex in the woods. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 23,10(Oct):63.
“Cindy, who was menstruating… had gone alone to a portable commode hidden in a thicket to change her tampon, unaware that a young stag was nearby… Smelling her menstrual secretions, the deer became sexually aroused. He bounded through the trees and knocked Cindy to the ground. Then while prancing up and down with his forefoot on her shoulder, the sexually excited deer sprinkled her with semen.”
The existence of mammalian pheromones is no joking matter, but this incident gave new meaning to the phrase “terms of endeerment.”
The involvement of mammalian pheromones in sexual arousal has been underestimated or denied in the context of pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution. Here’s what happened to one hunter who may have believed in the ridiculous claims made by Richard L. Doty that mammalian pheromones do not exist.
Here is what other human pheromone-deniers, like Luis Villarreal and Larry Young, would like you to believe about RNA-mediated events that link the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction from insects to elephants via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry that we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. The video representation links viruses to human monogamy via ridiculous misrepresentations of biologically-based cause and effect.
For comparison, people like Eugene Koonin do not typically make frivolous claims about biologically-based cause and effect. For example: “The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis…” The frivolous claims by others who have ignored the RNA-mediated links from 1) viral microRNAs and 2) nutrient-dependent microRNAs to 1) pathology or to 2) healthy longevity have now been placed into the context of biological facts that were not represented in either of the two videos.
Is any serious scientist not capable of performing such simple searches to find current information about biologically-based cause and effect? Or, is the evolution industry running the show — as I think is obvious in the video about VIRUS EVOLUTION?
Claims about virus-induced “evolved” monogamy exemplify more pseudosceintific nonsense that anyone should accept regardless of their industry associations and who has been conned into funding their research.
See also: “rna mediated” “James V. Kohl”