[betty boop]

Hey PH! Whether we're dealing with a time scale "going back" into the unknown human past, or a time scale "going forward" into the unknown human future, we are dealing (1) in terms of times scales that vastly exceed the ability of the mind to comprehend (2) in which most of what has occurred already is completely unknowable to people now living on the basis of direct experience; and what has not yet occurred is also completely unknowable, because it hasn't happened yet.

We have some indirect evidence of past events and circumstances for the historical period of human experience. But it is not exhaustive; for there was (presumably) a "before" before history began to be recorded.

Still, man infers and speculates from what he experiences and knows; which is where myths come from. And also science fiction. There are many instances in the past where "sci-fi" has proved prescient regarding future developments; and there are also "true myths," in the sense of truthful -- though certainly not exhaustive and certainly not necessarily "replicable" or "falsifiable" in the technical sense -- accounts of the way man experiences his place in the universe.

Where our knowedge is partial -- and it always is -- we have to "fill in the gaps" somehow. But in neither of these cases are we speaking of science or of scientific knowledge. JMHO FWIW. Thanks for writing, Patrick. best, bb.

[jennyp]

One aspect of our physiology that sounds fascinating, is the recent discovery that there really are pheromones, and that there is no single universal pheromone. It turns out that there are something like two dozen different body odors, and different people have one or more of these 24. Now, these body odors correspond to different sets of immunities, and the most sexy smells for any one person are precisely those odors that correspond to the most different sets of immunities from themselves.

(My understanding of this is purely Discover Channel quality, so don't take it as an expert's explanation. :-)

Now, they didn't need to understand evolution to detect this phenomenon in the first place, nor will it probably be needed in order to exploit the phenomenon, but it only makes sense in light of evolution. (The more your husband turns your motor, the healthier your children should be.)

I get conflicting claims about whether incest is more prevalent with adopted children vs. genetically related children. If we assume it is more prevalent, then this could explain why it would happen: The couple adopts a pre-pubescent child, who is not giving off any pheromones yet. Then when they do... uh-oh, it turns out to be from a different immunity set than the father! This shouldn't happen if they're their genetic offspring.

Ah, but maybe there's something more subtle going on: Is the immunity response set passed along via the chromosomes? Then, if a daughter happens to get most of her immunity genes from her mother, then she'd smell more like her mother does than like her father's sister would, and that could provide problematic temptation for him as well.

This would be an interesting experiment to perform: Compare the relevant genes (or body odors) of incest victims and their parents, and trace the pheromone combinations that ensue.