Joe wrote:
You abscessed half-wit, do you see Darwin's terms: preference, struggle and choice - below? Darwin (from the Descent of Man):
"The sexual struggle is of two kinds: in the one it is between the individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; while in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners."
"It is shown by various facts, given hereafter, and by the results fairly attributable to sexual selection, that the female, though comparatively passive, generally exerts some choice. and accepts one male in preference to others. Or she may accept, as appearances would sometimes lead us to believe, not the male which is the most attractive to her, but the one which is the least distasteful. The exertion of some choice on the part of the female seems a law almost as general as the eagerness of the male."
Here's another experiment which identifies your "chemicals" as a sexually selectable, olfactory trait. A Drosophila male pheromone affects female sexual receptivity, Micheline Grillet, Laurence Dartevelle, and Jean-François Ferveur:
Grillet et. al: "Sex pheromones are chemical signals frequently required for mate choice"
Your "chemical processes" are male secondary sex traits, and they trigger sexual selection in fruit fly species. Against you, they do not make sexual selection seep-out of the drain-hole of reality into non-being. Darwin's "shallow viewpoint" refutes every claim about insect mating that you've blathered. In the research I quoted from and linked to (which you depicted as the products of damaged minds), pheromones are identified as "male secondary sex traits". You lack the sense and brains to read anything, and you did not know that pheromones are one of many selectable reproductive traits.
"[] pheromones are multicomponent blends of chemicals, some of which tend to stimulate partner attraction while other components can induce repulsion (Linn & Roelofs 1989; Mustaparta 1996)."
"Darwin (1874) postulated that if the most odoriferous males were the most successful in winning females, male odours should constitute a sexually selected trait."
"Our data suggest that 7-tricosene (7-T) is a male-specific trait preferred by D. melanogaster females."
"In summary, we show that the principal Drosophila male cuticular pheromone (7-tricosene) can change female receptivity and mating behaviour. This finding should help us to better understand the implication of pheromonal communication in sexual selection and isolation."
For the last 140+ years, there has been an un-broken continuity between Darwin and his descendants, regarding the "shallow viewpoint" known as "the Theory of Sexual Selection". The mating behavior of sexually reproducing organisms is cashed-out under the terms of SS theory. Until such time that biologists amass sufficient evidence to refute their own theory, the terms: "preference", "resistance", "(active, passive and cryptic) choice", "gift", "competition", "advantage", "disadvantage", "discrimination", "quality", "fitness", "attractiveness", "combat", "exploitation", "male display", "manipulation", "conflict", etc., will continue to pick-out objective states of affairs, operating in nature. Without sexual selection as a crucial driver of evolution, evolutionary theory crumbles into de-objectified dust. You can either embrace sexual selection as a viable theory or reject evolution - outright. Distorting the facts, associated-with a driver of evolution, into counter-biological mayhem via cheap word-spells is not a legitimate move in the science game.
You cannot make evolutionary biology vanish by committing mentalistic equivocations with the terms that biologists use to describe the mating interactions on the part of non-human organisms.
Bullcrap. In the many pieces of data that I quoted regarding scorpionfly research, it was pointed-out crystal clearly that pheromone emissions were made (in some cases 7 hours) prior to a male presenting the gift or that pheromone emissions were not made at all. Breeding in scorpionfly (and other insect) species is not contingent on (nor reducible to) the selection of a single, sex trait. There are volumes of research which demonstrate that females in some scorpionfly species will not mate without a pre-copulatory nuptial gift presented and other volumes which show that females in some scorpionfly species will mate without a prior pheremone emission. For example:
Engqvist and Sauer (in Influence of Nutrition on Courtship and Mating in the Scorpionfly Panorpa cognata (Mecoptera, Insecta): http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/download/2395734/2496949. Engqvist and Sauer:
"Copulations also occurred with an arthropod carcass (prey) as nuptial gift. However, these copulations were usually not preceded by male calling [pheromone emissions] and the complex courtship behaviour. In only one of the 185 copulations involving a carcass, the male also called."
John R. Meyer (Department of Entomology at NC State University): http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/library/compendium/mecoptera.html. Meyer:
"Some female scorpionflies will accept a male suitor only if he brings her a gift of prey."
Gullan and Cranston (in The Insects: An Outline of Entomology): Mecoptera. Gullan and Cranston:
"Food items such as caterpillars, bugs, and flies are offered to be eaten during copulation. The female is first attracted by a pheromone emitted by one or more vesicles or pouches at the end of the male's abdomen. When the female is near, the vesicles are retracted. The female examines the offering while the male searches for her genitalia with his own. If the gift is rejected, the female flies away. If the gift is accepted, the genitalia of the male couples with that of the female, who lowers herself until she is hanging upside down. She consumes the offering during copulation."
Darwin from the Descent of Man:
"The courtship of animals is by no means so simple and short an affair as might be thought."
Norton boils-down insect mating to the excretion and reception of his "chemicals". However - since Darwin, it has been demonstrated experimentally (where it counts) that mating on the part of sexually reproducing organisms depends on the occurrence of complex, reciprocal interactions.