simply presented you with "the evidence that begs to differ".

I think you are interpreting uniformity differently than the original claim. When he said uniformity he was saying that there's a chance that one man could have something like pheromones when others did not, because genes make us all different.

My response was that a certain level of uniformity is expected in biology, and that we shouldn't assume otherwise without evidence to support doing so.

I don't really see anything in the article you linked that would really conflict with my rebuttal. Variables caused by something like environmental factors doenst imply an unexpected uniqueness within the species itself. No one is claiming that all members of a certain species are completely alike in every way.