Wrong. And using big words when they are not necessary does not make you right or sound smart btw. “to the knowledge of current science which in its current olfactory capacity” could be summed up as “currently, science”. Brevity and quality of content can show more intelligence than big words like “olfactory capacity”. Now onto my long winded explanation of why you are wrong:
Everyone has a micro biome on their skin. Each type of bacteria will give off a specific smell. While the populations of bacteria will change over time, the major populations will stay fairly constant, leading to a recognizable smell that each person has. In addition, an amazing amount of chemicals are secreted in sweat. These chemicals not only have their own scent and are determined by genetics, but which chemicals and at what concentrations will encourage/discourage certain populations of bacteria to flourish or not. All of this does produce a fairly static “odor print”. ”Fairly” being key as you are right in that it is not as static or unique as fingerprints (interesting research has suggested that fingerprints aren’t as unique as we once thought but that’s for another Ted talk).
As for the research, most of the modern research has suggested that it’s actually mostly immune-related genetics that compliment your own (would make a stronger immune system if combine with with yours in an offspring) that your nose is looking for, not just DNA that is dissimilar to yours, which is what it would be if aiming for purely expanding genetic diversity. If this research continues to hold up, you are absolutely wrong in saying it doesn’t play a role in choosing a significant other, and the fact that research is suggesting this at this time makes you completely out of line to just say “this just doesn’t happen.” It does make sense on a genetic compatibility level, as it does in that finding your partner’s smell appealing will factor into your attraction to them. Sorry you don’t find it believable or whatever, but your beliefs do not dictate science.
Then it’s a good thing I don’t try to sound “right” or “smart” then just because this hypergraphic individual tends to phrase things according to a different selection of words than the brute before me. None of what you describe is the same as there being a stable “odor signature”, or if it were possible, you would think dogs or perhaps forensic scientists could pull it off without any form of mistaken identity, unless there’s a number of citations pointing in the opposite viewpoint that this so-called “wannabe science” lacks.
Oooooh hypergraphic! Your pedantic semantics are enrapturing! No, someone who specifically came back to tell me I’m wrong with overconvoluted vocabulary and chauvinism wouldn’t be trying to prove either of those things.
Time magazine: the best source for up to date and accurate scientific information.
Except for the fact you’re far from the only questioner of this who has attempted to slam down on me for what you seem not to realize is an actual disorderly term even in response to citations, which the other side doesn’t give, though I fail to see how I imply chauvinism here.
Wrong. And using big words when they are not necessary does not make you right or sound smart btw. “to the knowledge of current science which in its current olfactory capacity” could be summed up as “currently, science”. Brevity and quality of content can show more intelligence than big words like “olfactory capacity”. Now onto my long winded explanation of why you are wrong:
Everyone has a micro biome on their skin. Each type of bacteria will give off a specific smell. While the populations of bacteria will change over time, the major populations will stay fairly constant, leading to a recognizable smell that each person has. In addition, an amazing amount of chemicals are secreted in sweat. These chemicals not only have their own scent and are determined by genetics, but which chemicals and at what concentrations will encourage/discourage certain populations of bacteria to flourish or not. All of this does produce a fairly static “odor print”. ”Fairly” being key as you are right in that it is not as static or unique as fingerprints (interesting research has suggested that fingerprints aren’t as unique as we once thought but that’s for another Ted talk).
As for the research, most of the modern research has suggested that it’s actually mostly immune-related genetics that compliment your own (would make a stronger immune system if combine with with yours in an offspring) that your nose is looking for, not just DNA that is dissimilar to yours, which is what it would be if aiming for purely expanding genetic diversity. If this research continues to hold up, you are absolutely wrong in saying it doesn’t play a role in choosing a significant other, and the fact that research is suggesting this at this time makes you completely out of line to just say “this just doesn’t happen.” It does make sense on a genetic compatibility level, as it does in that finding your partner’s smell appealing will factor into your attraction to them. Sorry you don’t find it believable or whatever, but your beliefs do not dictate science.
Then it’s a good thing I don’t try to sound “right” or “smart” then just because this hypergraphic individual tends to phrase things according to a different selection of words than the brute before me. None of what you describe is the same as there being a stable “odor signature”, or if it were possible, you would think dogs or perhaps forensic scientists could pull it off without any form of mistaken identity, unless there’s a number of citations pointing in the opposite viewpoint that this so-called “wannabe science” lacks.
Oooooh hypergraphic! Your pedantic semantics are enrapturing! No, someone who specifically came back to tell me I’m wrong with overconvoluted vocabulary and chauvinism wouldn’t be trying to prove either of those things.
Time magazine: the best source for up to date and accurate scientific information.
Except for the fact you’re far from the only questioner of this who has attempted to slam down on me for what you seem not to realize is an actual disorderly term even in response to citations, which the other side doesn’t give, though I fail to see how I imply chauvinism here.