Her eyes are wide as they stare into yours. You wrap your arm around her waist and pull her in close. She touches your face and you lean in, tilt your head – to the right, of course – and your lips connect. The rushing sensation leaves you little room to wonder, “Why the hell am I doing this anyway?”
Of course, the simplest answer is that humans kiss because it just feels good. But there are people for whom this explanation isn’t quite sufficient. They formally study the anatomy and evolutionary history of kissing and call themselves philematologists.
So far, these kiss scientists haven’t conclusively explained how human smooching originated, but they’ve come up with a few theories, and they’ve mapped out how our biology is affected by a passionate lip-lock.
A big question is whether kissing is learned or instinctual. Some say it is a learned behavior, dating back to the days of our early human ancestors. Back then, mothers may have chewed food and passed it from their mouths into those of their toothless infants. Even after babies cut their teeth, mothers would continue to press their lips against their toddlers’ cheeks to comfort them.
Supporting the idea that kissing is learned rather than instinctual is the fact that not all humans kiss. Certain tribes around the world just don’t make out, anthropologists say. While 90 percent of humans actually do kiss, 10 percent have no idea what they’re missing.
Others believe kissing is indeed an instinctive behavior, and cite animals’ kissing-like behaviors as proof. While most animals rub noses with each other as a gesture of affection, others like to pucker up just like humans. Bonobos, for example, make up tons of excuses to swap some spit. They do it to make up after fights, to comfort each other, to develop social bonds, and sometimes for no clear reason at all – just like us.
Today, the most widely accepted theory of kissing is that humans do it because it helps us sniff out a quality mate. When our faces are close together, our pheromones “talk” – exchanging biological information about whether or not two people will make strong offspring. Women, for example, subconsciously prefer the scent of men whose genes for certain immune system proteins are different from their own. This kind of match could yield offspring with stronger immune systems, and better chances for survival.
Still, most people are satisfied with the explanation that humans kiss because it feels good. Our lips and tongues are packed with nerve endings, which help intensify all those dizzying sensations of being in love when we press our mouths to someone else’s. Experiencing such feelings doesn’t usually make us think too hard about why we kiss – instead, it drives us to find ways to do it more often.
—–
Kissing has its downsides, too…
—–
Got a question for us? ASK!
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:44 pm
I had read somewhere else that some theorized it originated from a tradition of men and women swapping tobacco. Not sure of the source.
Jim
http://www.runfatboy.net - Exercise for the rest of us.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I agree with the ‘it feels good’ camp. That HAS to be the reason :) Still it IS odd that chimps and other animals do it.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:44 pm
@the english guy
Just saying “it feels good” doesn’t explain anything. If you believe that humans evolved, as the vast, vast majority of scientists do, then you’ll be curious to find a reason for kissing that makes it advantageous for reproduction somehow. The fact that it feels so good lends support to the idea that there is such a reason. Also, it would be even more odd if no other mammals did it, since most of the things that really make humans unique are more directly related to intellect.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Kissing is learned. Thais don’t kiss…they sniff each other’s cheeks. Put your tongue down a Thai girl’s throat and she is more likely to puke on you.
Then again, if you kiss her down below she is more likely to explode in ecstacy. I guess it all comes down to where you do your kissing, doesn’t it?
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Regardless, it’s still disgusting. They don’t mention that over 200 bacteria colonies are exchanged during a kiss.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Not everything has an obvious evolutionary reason for existing. Humans evolved consciousness, and the ability to think about what feels good and what doesn’t. There are several sexual practices engaged by humans that really have no bearing on improved reproduction.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Bacteria… I believe that is one of the reasons. Many South American cultures share spit in other ways, through community meals and ’special’ beverages. I have always suspected that this leads to a shared immune response, and makes a group stronger as a whole. Just my 2 cents.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:33 pm
sounds like someone is disappointed he isn’t getting any bacteria.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:43 pm
There would be a counter advantageous element to the kiss too from an evolutionary stand point. The kiss would greatly increase the chance of transmitting pathogens. If there is a genetic underpinning to this activity it would mean that the advantages must outweigh the negative aspects otherwise selective pressure would have favored individuals that didn’t kiss it or even were repulsed by this type on non-reproductive activity.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
@Anon
Your point…?
@Chad
Yea I agree. lol!
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:19 pm
@Joe
First, evolution is dead in informed circles. Entropy and information theory work against it.
Second, why must the ‘it feels good’ answer be wrong? Take an example of the inverse - I do not hit my finger with a hammer because it does not feel good. Does that mean that my continued persistance in NOT hitting my finger with a hammer comes from some deeply significant human-promotional act? Perhaps it’s just because I accidentally hit my finger with a hammer one time, and decided I didn’t want to do that again thanks to subsequent throbbing pain, so I avoid it. Similarly, perhaps kissing just feels good to many of us, and therefore we are attracted to the act, akin to how I’m repulsed from the painful hammer-to-a-finger act.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
i’ve read somewhere that it begun with men trying to know if there women had drunk wine.. O.o
michael, are you from south america? ¬¬
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Even in America, “French Kissing” was fairly uncommon until after Victorian times… I am fairly sure my parents (now aged 80) never did it. When the Clinton scandal broke, Mom expressed disgust that anyone would do *that* kind of thing either.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 pm
@Matt,
ahh… but then one has to ask, “Why does it hurt when you hit your hand with a hammer?” and you thus come back to the “must stay alive” mentality. When you make yourself less “survivable”, your body tells you it’s bad to do what you’re doing through pain. A broken finger would put you a few rungs down on the ladder of traits, so your body reacts by saying “Don’t do that”. Thus human-promotional act.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:29 pm
@Matt
Funny because the majority of scientist in the world all reguard evolution is fact. Quit making up stuff, unless creationists are informed circles to you.
As for kissing, I believe it’s a combination of feel good/instinctual behavior. I believe it feels good because we are programmed genetically to enjoy kissing because of the advantages that come from it. Still if passing on bacteria is so great, why do we only kiss our mates on the lips?
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
“@Joe
First, evolution is dead in informed circles. Entropy and information theory work against it.”
Evolution dead in informed circles? I bet the informed professors would disagree if I’d used that argument in any of the Bio courses that I’ve taken in the past few years. Entropy argues against a sustained complex system, but that doesn’t rule out the existence of any complex systems. Nature is full of complex systems, so a few proteins folding in just the right way on one planet out of trillions of stars in the known universe hardly seems unreasonable.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:37 pm
@Todd
You only kiss your mate on the (oral) lips?
Poor mate.
And poor you!
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
I see what Matt is saying, though. Making sure not to hit your finger with a hammer is not something that evolved evolutionarily exactly. The ability to have things feel good or feel bad evolved first, and then hitting your finger with a hammer happened to feel good. It’s not like cave men were hitting their fingers with hammers and then the ones with nerve endings survived and reproduced.
Similarly, being close face-to-face with someone, touching something soft to your lips, etc… it just feels good. We don’t need to have evolved kissing… It’s just something that feels good because of the way we evolved already, apart from kissing.
To say that people who don’t kiss were at any significant disadvantage to reproduce or survive seems ridiculous, IMO.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Oh, btw, this is a different Joe from the other Joe up there.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 pm
I think kissing helps us determine genetic diversification before mating. For example, my naive theory is that people’s saliva tastes different based on their chemical makeup, and perhaps blood type. If you get the same taste if you kiss someone, you are likely to be too alike, and its not as good for the success of your offspring to mix two alike people. If they taste different, I seem to favor kissing my mate more, and therefore more chance of successful mating with diverse genes in my children. Just a guess, but I haven’t seen any research to that effect.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Why do humans kiss?
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:29 pm
What no one has mentioned is that kissing is actually sexually stimulating. Somehow and for some reason, kissing is foreplay. Ear nibbling, hand-holding, and foot rubbing are also sexually stimulating. It could simply be arbitrary. As long as it leads to sex, that’s all that matters. Maybe the cultures that aren’t that into kissing just aren’t that into the aesthetics of sex. Just like the old blue-noses who are offended by oral sex.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 pm
@Zebov,
Yes, that’s true. That occurred to me as I was contemplating this. The hammer-on-the-finger does sound like an act that would decrease survivability. Perhaps that wasn’t the best example to use. My point was that the “feel goodness” of kissing may be enough to cause us to do it again, similar to the hammer-finger is enough to cause me to never do it again. Also, I would assert that pain does not necessarily govern what is best for our survival. Silly example: growing pains (e.g. aches, etc.) are a part of maturing physically. They hurt, but yet it’s a necessary part of my overall survivability. Maybe I’m thinking too much about this - this is just off-the-cuff theorizing on the topic.
@Todd & Andrew,
Not planning to make this an evolution debate, but since one of you suggested that I’m (or “we’re”, more likely) making this stuff up, I’ll play along.
Entropy & sustained complex systems - sure, that’s fine…except that all systems tend toward decay without purposeful and continued input, implying strategic organization when the system first existed. And where do these complex systems originate? They don’t occur randomly. You need information - articulated design decisions to create a system. Assuming a system defied all probability and was randomly generated, entropy kicks in and decays it. And then on top of that when you complicate the matter with most systems’ irreducible complexity, then the already tiny chances of any non-trivial system evolving become astronomically small.
I’ve read what learned people say about this, e.g. irreducible complexity. They tend to ignore either entropy (continued decay without information / energy input) or information theory (how the system got there to begin with). Talking about one in a vacuum is useless.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Stop to consider this.
Kissing is just another form of touch, just as is a stroke on the back. Both can be innocent, comforting, and arousing. Touch is the ultimate way to excite your senses. I hope we all know what happens when you excite the senses of your potential mate. Well, we all hope it won’t be blue balls.
If my girlfriend began rubbing my back in an intimate way, she would get a response that would encourage reproduction. But if I was feeling a bit down, and my girlfriend was doing it to bring me comfort, it would encourage a different set of emotions.
As stated before, there are a shit load of nerve bundles in the mouth and on the tongue, which make a great roadway for excitement. Our society dictates that kissing is a great starting point toward intercourse. If it was giving high-fives, basketball would be a lot more interesting.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:54 pm
I read somewhere (in Discovery mag I think but i’m probably wrong) that kissing is more about smelling your partner’s unique scent; i.e., while your lips are locked together, you are in a uniquely intimate position to smell your partner. It sounds sketchy and could be pure bollocks but …
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 am
Matt,
You are mistaken in thinking that a system of life on earth would decay due to entropy. Entropy is not disorder; entropy is energy that can not be used to perform work. New, non-entropy energy is constantly being introduced by solar radiation.
And don’t babble on about “irreducible complexity;” that’s just a buzzword designed to sound scientific but meaning “we don’t feel like imagining how this would have come to be.” Complexity arises from simplicity all the time. Observe how evaporating water, set to spin from the rotation of the earth, becomes a hurricane.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:19 am
@Matt
What do you call the sun? I’d say that’s somewhat of a lot of energy input. Solar power may be inefficient, but it’s not nonexistent.
But yeah, entropy only applies in a closed system. The earth is quite thoroughly not a closed system. The sun is becoming more disorderly all the time, which in turn allows the earth to become more orderly. Thus, the complete sun-earth system always increases in average entropy, but that doesn’t mean parts of it can’t become more orderly.
And I think this debate sort of stems from a confusion regarding whether pleasure and pain serve a purpose. If they are things that are just there for no reason, then Matt could be right. If, on the other hand, they are indeed survival mechanisms, and our genes are punishing self-destructive behaviour such as thumb-hammering and rewarding self-reproductive behaviour such as sex, then the logical assumption is that, yes, we kiss because it feels good, but in addition to that, kissing feels good for a reason. So the underlying question the article was originally trying to ask was not “Why do we kiss?”, but is instead “Why does kissing feel good?”
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:19 am
“They tend to ignore either entropy (continued decay without information / energy input)”
*ahem* THE SUN!
Next!
(99.85% of all scientists in related fields support evolution theory, 95% in non-related fields do also, your “informed circle” must be pretty small)
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 am
It does feel good. And it tends to bond people together, because its an intimate experience. People who wouldn’t dare use each other’s toothbrushes will kiss like there’s no tomorrow. The bonding experience may explain the evolutionary benefits of kissing.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 am
@scosol - I think Todd was saying something else. Not that lips are the only places we kiss our mates, but our mates are the only ones we kiss. Like, if bacteria swapping is so great, why don’t we kiss the smelly old man at the bus stop?
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:28 am
Why do we kiss???
Q. Why does a dog lick its butt?
A. Cause it can.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 am
@ Sean, DannyDrak
Glad somebody mentioned this point. Typical of the scientists to miss it :) - yet the ‘lovers’ amongst us know that kissing isn’t just for the lips - either pair.
But to the assertion that as some cultures do not engage in kissing therefore it is a ‘learned’ behaviour, that seems a bit flawed. Can we be sure that the absence of kissing in those cultures is not due to latterly imposed social or ideological rules, rather like the those of many established religions? I can’t, so I’m with the ‘instinctual’ camp. It’s for sexual stimulation. The fact that it feels good is indicative of the purpose why it triggers our instincts.
Sexual stimulation is all about finding the best mate for procreation and, as evidenced in other animals at least, in the most efficient and fastest way possible, after all, all animals are extremely vulnerable to predators during this act. In our history, human’s were no less vulnerable.
Perhaps the act of kissing parts of the body other than the mouth is learned however, in the same way that sign language developed to better communicate the acts of the hunters and now we prattle on about all kinds of trivia on the Internet :)
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 am
Could it just be part of the mating ritual that’s evolved along with the notions of love, and from there has become a learned thing?
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:02 am
@ Matt
>First, evolution is dead in informed circles. >Entropy and information theory work against it.
You mean uninformed circles?
Entropy would work against it in a closed system, but guess what the only closed system in the universe is? That’s right… the universe!
Earth recieves energy from the sun, therefore the law of increasing entropy in a closed system does NOT apply. Take some physics and get back to us, mmmkay? :)
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 am
Kissing is of course the smallest favor that leads to sex, it feels good and everyone knows that when you kiss that certain spot, whether it be the ears or what not, it leads to heavy excitement, therefore increasing your chances of reproduction. Sure it could have evolved over time from some mom giving food to her kids or whatever, the fact of the matter is it’s still done today, it improves everyday and it evolves in a sense from just a peck on the lips to full on tonsel hockey. Kissing is something that mates do when they feel comfortable around each other enough to engage in further commitment and bonding. you wouldnt just sit there and twiddle your thumbs to get the night going. NO! it is a common activity to do with a mate and you can think that it evolved from cave men if you want to, but i think everyone is missing the big picture of what kissing really means and what it brings to a relationship. it’s also a tell tale sign that the other mate likes you and wants to take things further and its relaxing and intimate and anyone who doesnt like to kiss or hasnt been exposed to it, should be.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:17 am
most mammles clean one another. for instance my two cats clean each other, and so do my two rats. It is just a way to show love and care to another. but we do it by kissing.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:19 am
Matt..
As nicely as I can put it - you’re uninformed, if not an outright idiot.
First off, the notion that Evolution somehow breaks the laws of entropy is just silly. (The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is what you’re referring to, I believe, there is no ‘law of entropy’..): You can read several explanations of why your claim is wrong here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Short and sweet, your own words above invalidate this claim! ‘Systems decay without constant input’ - What do you think the SUN is, anyway? It’s a gigantic energy source, pouring vast amounts of energy out into space and onto the earth. The earth is NOT a closed system, so complexity most certainly CAN increase. It’s only in a closed system that the ‘Law’ states that complexity will tend to decrease.
Snowflakes are far more complex than drops of water, yet they occur all the time. Why? Due to interactions with the sun, air, and water on our planet, we have this nifty process called ‘weather’, where heat energy and water vapor are circulated all around the planet, forming complex patterns in a myriad of forms, from lightning to clouds to snowflakes. There are many other forms of ’simple’ complexity being created around us constantly.
As for this need for ‘information’ that you claim, I don’t suppose you could quote any honest science (You know, *real, peer-reviewed* science) that explains this need, or even properly quantifies what ‘information’ is, exactly? It’s a nice claim, but it’s nothing but babbling in an attempt to sound scientific. There is no law or even a proper theory that requires ‘articulated design decisions’ for weather, evolution, or any of the other processes around us. All they take is energy, and we get it from the sun in abundance.
‘Irreducible Complexity’ is a farce. Intelligent Design is a farce. It has no science behind it, and everytime one of these creationists hiding as a scientist brings it up, they are quickly shot down by real scientists all around them. Everytime they point to an example and say ‘See? Irreducible Complexity!’, they’re shown to be wrong. Bacterial flagella, the blood clotting cascade, the eye, the immune system, even something as simple as mousetraps! Michael Behe himself had to admit in court that none of his examples either showed IC or ruled out evolution as described in the neo-darwinian synthesis.
Here. Read about it at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html .
Try reading the whole site, or at least the sections that explain those particular subjects. Read about the Dover Trial itself here.
Go to PubMed and search for articles referring to ‘Evolution’, and compare it to articles referencing ‘Irreducible Complexity’. You -might- find half a dozen that mention IC, and all of them showing how it’s wrong. You’ll find tens or even hundreds of thousands of real, peer-reviewed studies, each one validating or explaining yet another tiny piece of the Theory of Evolution.
There IS no ‘Theory of Intelligent Design’, unlike the Theory of Evolution. After many years of questioning, I have yet to see any ID proponent articulate an actual theory that doesn’t involve ‘and then god’s magic happens’.
Really, just having you say ‘Evolution is dead in informed circles.’ tells me that you don’t actually travel in any informed circles. Could you give us some examples of these ‘informed circles’ who feel that Evolution is dead?
Please. Educate yourself about REAL science, and then come back to talk to us about informed circles’ and the laws of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just today I started seeing articles about the most recent Nobel Prize being given out. To whom?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_pr.....ates/2006/
A pair of researchers who jointly discovered RNA Interference - gene silencing by double-stranded RNA. Try reading the advanced information about the breakthrough and see how many times it refers to evolutionary implications, and then tell me that evolution is dead!
Ermine
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:22 am
Grait stuff. I knid of knew the answer - but it’s nice to be confirmed. Good work - nice (short) reading :-)
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:22 am
why does everyone want so badly to think that there MUST be an evolutionary process behind kissing? somethings are done simply for pleasure… look at masterbating, it has no reproductive benefits, it doesnt significantly impact our health, why do we do it then… oh that’s right b/c it feels good. while kissing may have some big chain of events leading to it being ingrained in our brains, it seems more likely that its one of those things we do b/c we like the way it makes us feel.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:55 am
I think tis because public oral sex became taboo thousands of years ago.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:08 am
but it isnt now..and kissing isnt public oral sex unless you are actually that daring and out there..kissing is a public thing, i see couples making out in the parks all the time, hell i do it. i have to agree with this is silly, because it is virtually the same concept, it just feels good and honest to god when you find something that feels good and gives you pleasure do you really want to give it up and stop doing it??
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:16 am
*raises hand*
There are some of us who do not find any pleasure in kissing and wonder what the hell the rest of you are so excited about. To me, finding kissing pleasurable is like being ticklish — if you are ticklish, you react to being tickled, otherwise it’s just weird touching. And like being ticklish, it doesn’t mean you’re abnormal in any other way.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:23 am
i though masterbation did serve a purpose…cleaning out the tubes and what not. not to mention the endorphins released. am i wrong on this??? here i thought i was being healthy :-(
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:26 am
what about if you aren’t in love? people seem to be satisfied by kissing still, and i would never understand why making out witha random stranger would be pleasant in any way.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:31 am
@beer
actually you are correct..i learned this in bio..you are being healthy and plus it builds up the muscles in ur arm..well both if you’re multi talented..plus when you eat healthy too, like lots of fruits and vegies and protien, it makes it taste sweeter and better because its all vitamins and proteins that you release.. so yea just a lil tip watch what you eat, cuz we swallow it too… (hah) and of course making out with a complete stranger isnt pleasurable, its gross cuz you dont know them, for it to mean something you have to be friends with the person first.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 am
@Jason
The ‘physical’ universe is not a closed system. It’s not that difficult to see this if you look with a disciplined mind. Of course, if you only observe physical law being played out, and take probabilities to be governed by such law (as opposed to sentience), you aren’t going to percieve that which lies before you, within you, ohh, basically everywhere.
@Plasma
I don’t know why people associate increased entropy with increased disorder. Here is a little definition for you from a popular book:
“entropy: the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity”
Like, what if everything was Iron? Would Ozzy be the alpha Fe-Male then? :p
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:00 am
Joe says…
“If you believe that humans evolved, as the vast, vast majority of scientists do”
Joe, you are full of shit. Interesting that when someone knows subconsciously that they are full of shit, they have to use superlatives. The word “vast” would be unnecessary even once if you believed what you are saying. Twice is absurd, and focuses your self doubt like a laser beam on your statement. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the scientific community knows that evolutionism is not nearly as popular as you so fervently hope.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:04 am
Matt Says…
Funny because the majority of scientist in the world all reguard evolution is fact. Quit making up stuff, unless creationists are informed circles to you.
Matt,
Provide some sources. You made a fool of yourself with that comment. It is utter nonsense.
Also, you should repeat 7th grade English class.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:05 am
Matt, I apologize.
In the above post, I meant to say, “Todd says”
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:13 am
FAB says…
(99.85% of all scientists in related fields support evolution theory, 95% in non-related fields do also, your “informed circle” must be pretty small)
Bachelor’s degree in physics, grad study in electrical engineering here.
I know no one with a real scientific background who supports evolution theory. Not ONE. Where do you guys get these numbers? From your freshman biology professor? He is probably not a scientist, but a political activist, memorizer, and wishful thinking secular humanist with an agenda. Wake up, guys.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:17 am
Jason says…
Earth recieves energy from the sun, therefore the law of increasing entropy in a closed system does NOT apply. Take some physics and get back to us, mmmkay? :)
Jason,
Physics major here with degree. Anyone who uses mmmkay is too immersed in popular culture to be taken seriously.
Sarcastic fool.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:02 am
redneck joe keeps sidestepping refutations to the argument with which he agrees, with personal attacks and appeals to his own authority. why not directly address the argument if you are so familiar with the subject matter? You require sources, but do not provide any yourself.
here’s a link to an outside source concerning this very claim that scientists “who know” don’t believe in evolution. HTML may not work in this forum so just copy the text between quotations if the link does not appear.
outside source
it’s obvious that emotions run high when anyones beliefs are challenged, but that doesn’t excuse us from trying to communicate with civility.
BTW i use big words because they are a normal part of my vocabulary… i read a lot of books.
p.s. who knew an article about kissing could spawn such a debate?
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 am
ah, since links work i’ll give a couple more:
page referencing the same claim
evowiki
poll results of ohio scientists, primarily framed around intelligent design, but with specific questions about the validity of the theory of evolution.
poll results
i’m curious, do the people “with a real scientific background” agree on an alternative to evolution? or do they just not know how to explain the state of species diversity we see on the earth today?
“i don’t know” is a valid answer as far as i’m concerned.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:48 am
@Matt (and all the other @$$hats…)
Regarding strategic organization and the origin of complex systems… Try to use just a little imagination, and wonder how much time passed before the universe came into existence. Whatever *scientific* theory of creation (i.e. big bang) you choose to assault with your “information theory” argument, it can be countered by considering that given enough time any random system will organize itself into all possible arrangements.
Every time I flip a coin, I have a 50% chance of flipping heads or tails. Maybe I want flip heads a billion times in row… If I flip I coin *forever*, this will eventually happen.
Jackass
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:04 am
Marc Holt: Ever learnt anything about generalisation and assumption…
Showing affection for a partner might not be social acceptable in Thailand but it doesn’t mean all Thais don’t kiss and only sniff kiss.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:20 am
The interesting thing about the evolution theory is how it has adopted a sort of “emperor’s new clothes” superior attitude. Anyone who believes in evolution seems to think those that question it must be stupid. Then they make smug and superior posts flaming the persons who question. Ergo, “you must be stupid if you don’t believe like I do.” It took an honest and unpretentious little kid, in the fairy tale, to look at the emperor and say, “wow he’s naked! ha ha!”
It seems to me that the evolution theory disregards simple logic in its basic premise. We know from human experience that nothing complex in our environment spontaneously develops. Nothing. Everything we see that is complex, from tiny bacteria to complete, massive, living biochemical structures that are animals and plants from birds, fish, humans to whales, ALWAYS develops from a precursor. Never do we see even so called “simple” forms like bacteria or single celled organisms spontaneously occurring. The odds against such spontaneous generation of complex life forms are astronomical.
I’ll insert a quote here. “The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 10-46 occasions is then about 10-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected.” [Quastler, Henry. The Emergence of Biological Organization, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1964, p. 7]
The odds of life spontaneously occurring, then, are 1 in a number so vast as to be quantitatively larger than the estimated number of atoms in the universe! Forget planets.
It’s as Dr. Chen said - “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:28 am
Speaking of scientists who support evolution, there’s Project Steve:
http://tinyurl.com/efqgp
A list of now 761 scientists named Steve, Stephanie or other variants who support evolution as a fundamental principle. And yes, I’m one of them. Good luck finding that many scientists of any name who think evolution is hogwash.
Not that the appeal to authority means anything anyway, of course.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:35 am
Has anyone asked the French? Kiss?
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:36 am
Where is the science in the shiat article? This artcile reads and feels like an high school newspaper expose! Well in retards!
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:37 am
Steve:
As the old saying says, following the crowd, may lead nowhere. Most scientists in Galileo’s day believed the earth was the centre of the universe. Only a select few believed the truth.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:37 am
u book answer: The ceremony of adoption consisted in drinking each other’s blood. In some groups saliva was exchanged in the place of blood drinking, this being the ancient origin of the practice of social kissing. And all ceremonies of association, whether marriage or adoption, were always terminated by feasting.
P787:8, 70:3.8 In later times, blood diluted with red wine was used, and eventually wine alone was drunk to seal the adoption ceremony, which was signified in the touching of the wine cups and consummated by the swallowing of the beverage. The Hebrews employed a modified form of this adoption ceremony. Their Arab ancestors made use of the oath taken while the hand of the candidate rested upon the generative organ of the tribal native. The Hebrews treated adopted aliens kindly and fraternally. “The stranger that dwells with you shall be as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself.”
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:22 am
I’ve got to add in Sir Fred Hoyle. He’s a riot.
Evolution teaches that in the beginning, inanimate matter, through countless combinations and a great deal of time, arrived at the present highly complex forms of life found on the earth. Let’s see what the experts have to say:
“…anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik’s Cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10-50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously [emphasis original] arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.”
This quote was from Sir Fred Hoyle, an honorary research professor at Manchester University and University College Cardiff. He was a University lecturer in Mathematics at Cambridge. He is a well known and well respected scientist. Chance development of life on earth, in his opinion, is “nonsense of the highest order.”
He also says in another work concerning biomolecules:
“…one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10-20 x 10-2000 = 10-40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”
I love it. And yet, the majority of scientists, as Steve-o mentioned previously, adhere with blind faith to this theory, with its “outrageously small probability” of occurrence. Why? The answer is hinted at in an above post - “secular humanist agenda.” They do not want to consider the possibility of a higher force, a higher intelligence, which must have started and put into operation the order we see around us.
I reserve the right to question and to doubt. Evolutionists, in my experience, are just as rabidly fanatic in their groundless faith in their theory, as say, your average Southern Baptist is with regard to his ridiculous literal creationism and racism.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:28 am
@Todd
blow yourself up.
Matt didn’t make anything up you sack O’shit. he made a very valid point, which was in turn just as easily arguable. and yea, I’d say creationists are well informed circles. Any scientist not interested in being proven wrong is no scientist. He’s a slandering buffoon of a coward.
And kissing came from the mothers feeding the young most likely, and enough of it happening, it could be a comforting mechanism to press lips. Birds do it for their young.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:31 am
@ Kami-MP
Perhaps I was a little harsh, but I am not saying that “Intelligent Design” is wrong, I just think it is rediculous to try and undermine well established scientific theories with bogus arguments.
IMO, it doesn’t make sense to mix science and religion, because I believe religion is based on faith, and faith is believing something to be true without evidence. If one needs to support their faith with “scientific” evidence, or feels that science infringes on their beliefs, perhaps they should reexamine their faith.
I would guess that many scientists are also people of faith, go to a place of worship and regular pray to a supreme being, and still except that evolution is a sound scientific theory. Perhaps one could believe that evolution is part of God’s plan and call it “Intelligent Design”, but that is faith, not science.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 am
@ Kami-MP
Again, it seems common to neglect time when discussing probablities. For all we know througout time there have been countless iterations of perhaps lifeless universes. But we are here now, and perhaps it is a random empty occurrence. It is rediculous to suggest that our existence defies all odds of probablity, and therefore our creation must be by design.
Any event with probability greater than 0 MUST occur eventually.
Either accept it on faith, or accept that we just “are”, because we must be.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:38 am
Redneck Joe sez: I know no one with a real scientific background who supports evolution theory. Not ONE.
Southern Man replies: Interesting that in my thirty odd years of university teaching in the natural and applied sciences - mainly in private Bible-belt Christian schools - I’ve not met ANYONE with a real scientific background that didn’t at least accept that the theories of evolution, coupled with the mountains of physical evidence in support of those theories, gave a compelling explanation for the extraordinary diversity of life on Earth. The ultimate test of ANY scientific theory is how well it explains what we see in the observable universe - and, like it or not, evolution is the theory that most successfully does so today. If a better theory comes along, evolution will be replaced by it. However, there isn’t much sign of a superior alternative today. Arguments about information theory and entropy certainly don’t make the grade.
But my real reason for replying is ’cause I sent this link to my gf. Hi, gf! I don’t know if it’s your pheremones or your superior immune system or what, but I can’t wait to kiss you tonight!
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:39 am
@ Kami-MP
Give one blind man a rubics cube, and wait forever…. he’ll solve it
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 am
Scott:
I think most people believe faith must be something that is ethereal, without basis or grounding in fact, just a blind belief or credulity that someone inexplicably has in a higher power.
In fact, real faith is grounded on fact, knowledge, and experience. The foundation of REAL faith is reason, not credulity. For instance, you will have “faith” in your good friend after he or she has proven themselves reliable. I trust in my Mercedes because I know it was built well in the first place - it has good handling and good brakes.
Likewise I have experienced from my observation of science and nature on this planet that we were created by a being that is wise and powerful, and obviously wanted us to enjoy life. In my personal life I have also experienced other things, and learned other things, which have caused me to logically and reasonably pursue and advocate belief in a creator, and to pursue a relationship with that being. My faith is not blind but based on a firm foundation.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:44 am
Scott:
Who is the man? Who built his hands? Who built the Rubik’s cube? Who created the time-based dimension in which he exists? Who supported his eternal existence, allowing him to eternally attempt to solve the cube?
Your logic is supremely flawed.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:45 am
KamiMP
“The interesting thing about the evolution theory is how it has adopted a sort of “emperor’s new clothes” superior attitude. Anyone who believes in evolution seems to think those that question it must be stupid.”
There is nothing unique about “evolution theory” in that respect; only creationists single it out. People would tell you you’re stupid if you denied the validity of quantum electrodynamics or the germ theory of disease. They are all scientific theories supported by massive amounts of hard evidence. The only reason people claim that only Darwin cannot be criticized is because it’s only Darwin that wingnut creationists attempt to criticize.
“We know from human experience that nothing complex in our environment spontaneously develops. […] Never do we see even so called “simple” forms like bacteria or single celled organisms spontaneously occurring.”
Of course. We never will, for many reasons. First, it took a very long time for life to develop in the first place; far longer than the lifespan of any human or even human civilization. Second, early life was able to develop because our atmosphere was oxygen-free; oxygen tends to disrupt the simpler biochemical processes. Most importantly, new life can’t develop in an environment already populated with life. Existing organisms have evolved to be too efficient at processing biomolecules; new life would never have a chance to compete.
“The odds against such spontaneous generation of complex life forms are astronomical. I’ll insert a quote here.”
All such quotes are based on ridiculous assumptions, neglecting such basic principles of selection and self-organization. Statements such as “the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial” bear no relation to the processes by which enzymes actually form: it wasn’t 10^40000 simultaneous shots in the dark.
Furthermore, the particular figure you use was arrived at by especially ridiculous reasoning: the odds of producing life *exactly like us* are small, but that has nothing to do with the odds of producing *life*. As a crude analogy, shuffle a deck of cards and lay them out in sequence: the odds of getting the particular sequence you do are astronomically small, but the odds of getting some sequence are 100%.
See Stuart Kauffman’s work for arguments that the development of life is not only not astronomically unlikely, but in fact overwhelmingly likely whenever a sufficient chemical complexity is present. Of course, those arguments cannot yet be proven, but it is an example of how probabilities depend heavily on the assumptions being made.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:49 am
Kami
I think you make a very good point and I don’t disagree with you, and I suppose my definition of faith was overstated:
“faith is believing something to be true without evidence”
I am just trying to say that we shouldn’t need to look for concrete proof that there is a creator…
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:54 am
Kami
I don’t see how an argument with no logic can demonstrate that another argument is without logic… that seems flawed to me.
It is a fact, and I will repeat it again, it doesn’t matter “who” made what, in this universe, any event with a probability greater than 0 MUST occur, given enough time.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:03 am
Mathematical likelihood is a very sound basis for questioning the origin of life on this planet. Wishful-thinking along the lines of Kaufmann, with his outlandish theoretical postulations, and stating that earth had a zero-oxygen environment which supposedly would be more favorable for the spontaneous generation of complex amino acids (a supposition which is entirely unproven and actually very dubious given the geological evidence) is a sad attempt to patch up the popped balloon of the theory as it stands. Think about it: we know that if we were to take microorganisms from earth and deposit them on another planet, they would almost certainly perish. Why/ Because every life form on earth fits into the massive and exceedingly complex pattern of things we see around us. one depends on another to survive. if we were to terraform another planet, we would need to simultaneously introduce a large number of elements to support the survival of earth organisms. We haven’t even scratched the surface in our attempts to understand the complexity of earth’s ecosystems! What would this newly spontaneously formed single celled organism eat? Breathe/ How would it reporduce? Oh, so you’re saying not only did it spontaneously pop into existence from inanimate matter, it came fully programmed with instructions for survival, DNA which would allow it to breathe, eat and reproduce, and within an environment in which it might survive? What if a rock fell on it? oh, well, many of them must have spontaneously developed at 1 in 10×40000 a pop? Come on! The whole concept is unrealistic to the point of making a sci-fi writer die of mortification.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 am
Scott:
If what you say is true, then why does science maintain a higher law of probability, and a ratio of odds-based improbability or even impossibility? My point is valid - for life to exist, the building blocks of life and an ecosystem to support life must exist. Are you saying that a VCR would spontaneously pop into existence somewhere in the universe, given enough time? If so, would it really play a VHS tape? Would it have a power plug? If it did, wouldn’t you wonder why a planet with no life on it would have a VCR with the ability to play a VHS tape (doesn’t exist) and designed to plug into a power receptacle (doesn’t exist?) Even a single celled organism is beyond imagination in terms of how much more complex it is, compared to a VCR. So the VCR couldn’t spontaneously exist, but the vastly more complex single celled organism could, and somehow it would survive? The idea defies logic, and common sense.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:11 am
Kami
Faith is precisely as Scott defined it, belief without evidence.
Your experiences that lead you to believe in a god are also exactly that - without evidence. I challenge you to bring up a single thing that could not be explained in some other (simpler and more scientific) way.
And people who challenge evolution are dismissed as fools because they overwhelmingly are fools. Fools with a poor undertanding of what they challenge, a poor understanding of the arguments they try to use against it and a fundamentalist religious agenda. Intelligent design is not science. Evolution is. If and when any of you have a better theory about how the biological diversity we see around us came about, a theory that fits the evidence, then the world will listen. Until that time I suggest you back off and reconsider your religious stance.
Even the Pope has acknowledged evolution as god’s work. Why can’t you?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:17 am
Self-organization? Don’t get me started… The universal law of entropy as applied to living organisms defeats such arguments soundly. No complexity on the order of that required for life to exist, (let alone what might be required for the random spontaneous generation of a living organism from inanimate matter) can be shown to spontaneously develop at all, ever. Period. You don’t get swiss watches by throwing a hand greande into a china shop, people. Not even in an eternity of hand grenades and china shops.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:19 am
Kami
I think you may be overlooking the part about “any event with a probability greater than 0″
I think its reasonable to assume the spontaneous appearance of a VCR has a probablity of 0
:P
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:21 am
“Gothnet”:
The Pope? Don’t get me started. I challenge you to show that you have a greater understanding of the science behind evolution and what its premises are trying to make us accept, than I do. We’ve already discussed blind faith, and where it leads. I seriously doubt you have studied these issues anywhere near to the depth I have. And your expressions on the matter faith betray a definite ignorance on that subject as well.
Are YOU sure you believe in evolution based on the evidence, or do you just think that’s what smart people believe in, so you believe it too?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:24 am
So a VCR has a zero probability, but a microorganism made up of complex amino chains, (clearly evidence of engineering on the MOLECULAR level, good lord) capable of eating, breathing, self locomotion, basic behavioural capability and reproduction, spontaneously popping into existence from raw elemental materials, has a higher probability? What about the probability of the planet, its minerals, the solar system’s organization, the galaxy’s organization and picture perfect operations, the distance of the planet from the sun, and on and on, all having just come to be at random? In science there are principles, not imagination - cause, and effect. As in, without cause, there is no effect?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:26 am
Kami
Actually, entropy is not a universal law. It is a law of thermodynamics. Somehow, it has become a law of ecosystems in certain circles… I have no idea why.
Try this link for a definition.
In information theory, entropy also has a meaning, but it has nothing to do with systems decaying to a uniform state.
Heres the link
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:27 am
Oops… that link didn’t work
try this
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:30 am
Kami
If I remember correctly, you were earlier quoting the probabilities assigned to the proper arrangement of organic compounds necessary for life to begin here on earth… I think it was greater than 0
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:31 am
Simple entropy law states that any complex machine or system, in time, decays. Eg., you organize your house, but over time, it becomes a mess again. You leave a nice car on the lawn, and over time it rusts and falls apart. We have no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the postulation that complex systems are derived from long periods of time, with random chance. None. Ergo, I can build something, and over time it will decay, not get more complex or organized. Complexity does not arrive without cause and effect, and for complexity on the level we see on this planet and solar system, galaxy, etc., that cause has to have been intelligent and powerful.
The idea that complex systems can be arrived at over long periods of time is just as ridiculous as the idea that a VCR would grow, somewhere on some planet, with enough time and random chance thrown in. It defies logic and common sense.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:34 am
Scott:
Reasonably, at what point do you define a probability an impossibility? And have you thought about the implications of time as an eternity? How old do astronomers think our galaxy is, for instance? Nowhere near old enough to support the idea that an event as unlikely as 1 in 1×10-4000 could possibly have occurred.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:39 am
Kami
I do not “believe” in evolution, I have looked at the available evidence, granted not all of it because there is so much, and it makes sense as a scientific theory.
Creationism does not.
Your last post there about entropy belies your lack of scientific understanding as well.
If you leave a nice car on the lawn it rusts and falls apart. That may be true, but what if someone was putting in energy to maintain it? The entropy argument is old and was busted long ago. The earth is not a closed system, energy is continually supplied by the sun, the second law does not apply. I sincerely doubt you’ve made any sort of study of thermodynamics if this simple fact has escaped you
why not take a look here for thorough, scientific debunkings of all your arguments and many many more?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 am
Ambitwistor:
It must really rot your socks that, although it’s true that we don’t see spontaneous generation of life in our natural environment, mankind, with all his sophistication, has as well been unable even in complex laboratory situations, to replicate the process that supposedly led to the development of life on this planet?
What about the “hard evidence” you so adroitly refer to? Bring it on! Hardcore evolutionists often are unaware of how thoroughly the fossil record undermines concepts of evolution, rather than supports them.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 am
Kami-MP:
“Mathematical likelihood is a very sound basis for questioning the origin of life on this planet.”
Not when the assumptions which go into the calculations are total nonsense, a point which you have not addressed.
“Wishful-thinking along the lines of Kaufmann, with his outlandish theoretical postulations, and stating that earth had a zero-oxygen environment which supposedly would be more favorable for the spontaneous generation of complex amino acids (a supposition which is entirely unproven and actually very dubious given the geological evidence)”
I didn’t say that zero-oxygen is more favorable for the formation of amino acids; certainly there is no shortage of amino acids today. However, oxygen most certainly is poisonous to most anaerobic life; almost all life on Earth died off when oxygen-producing organisms evolved.
“Think about it: we know that if we were to take microorganisms from earth and deposit them on another planet, they would almost certainly perish.”
Actually, bacteria were taking to the Moon and back and survived. However, they were not biologically active on the Moon itself.
“Why/ Because every life form on earth fits into the massive and exceedingly complex pattern of things we see around us.”
Life on Earth is adapted to the planet on which it evolved. Is that supposed to be an argument against evolution??
“What would this newly spontaneously formed single celled organism eat? Breathe?”
Do you think there was a shortage of chemicals in the early Earth? That’s how life formed in the first place: from a chemical soup.
“How would it reporduce?”
Self-reproducing molecules existed long before cellular life did.
“Oh, so you’re saying not only did it spontaneously pop into existence from inanimate matter, it came fully programmed with instructions for survival, DNA which would allow it to breathe, eat and reproduce, and within an environment in which it might survive?”
No, that’s the ludicrous creationist strawman argument for how life formed. The earliest life was nothing more than a self-reproducing molecule, like a peptide chain or RNA.
“What if a rock fell on it? oh, well, many of them must have spontaneously developed at 1 in 10×40000 a pop? Come on!
Of course. Life probably simultaneously developed many times all over the Earth. Your 10^40000 is a made-up number, not a real calculation based on anything having to do with what happened on Earth.
“for life to exist, the building blocks of life and an ecosystem to support life must exist.”
The building blocks of life are simple chemicals, and so is its “ecosystem”.
“Are you saying that a VCR would spontaneously pop into existence somewhere in the universe, given enough time?”
Single-celled life did not spontaneously pop into existence.
“Would it have a power plug? If it did, wouldn’t you wonder why a planet with no life on it would have a VCR with the ability to play a VHS tape (doesn’t exist) and designed to plug into a power receptacle (doesn’t exist?) ”
Life didn’t pop into existence adapted to survive in a world that didn’t exist, either.
How can you presume to be so arrogant as to make these arguments here without knowing the first thing about biology or chemistry?
“So a VCR has a zero probability, but a microorganism made up of complex amino chains, (clearly evidence of engineering on the MOLECULAR level, good lord)”
Circular reasoning. The existence of complicated molecules in no way logically implies “engineering”.
“capable of eating, breathing, self locomotion, basic behavioural capability and reproduction, spontaneously popping into existence from raw elemental materials, has a higher probability?”
You’re skipping way, way ahead in the history of life. Those capabilities EVOLVED OVER TIME. You know, evolution? That theory you’re supposedly talking about?
“spontaneously popping into existence from raw elemental materials”
You’re being ridiculous. Do you really think that anyone thinks that an entire cell “spontaneously popped into existence”?
“the solar system’s organization, the galaxy’s organization and picture perfect operations,”
All of those things happen naturally due to the laws of gravity, and are quite common in the universe.
“Operations”? You are again begging the question. Just because planets move in orbits doesn’t mean that they are executing designed “operations”.
“the distance of the planet from the sun, and on and on, all having just come to be at random?”
There are lots of planets in the universe. Many of them are likely to be in the liquid water zone. Not all of them are. So what?
“In science there are principles, not imagination - cause, and effect. As in, without cause, there is no effect?”
I imagine you will next circularly reason that for an effect to take place, the cause must be set in motion by some intelligent being.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:45 am
Kami-MP:
“It must really rot your socks that, although it’s true that we don’t see spontaneous generation of life in our natural environment, mankind, with all his sophistication, has as well been unable even in complex laboratory situations, to replicate the process that supposedly led to the development of life on this planet?”
Why should we? Life took hundreds of millions of years to develop using the chemicals present over the entire surface of the Earth. Why do you think this process should be easily possible to replicate within a laboratory within a few decades?
“What about the “hard evidence” you so adroitly refer to? Bring it on!”
Read a textbook for a summary of the tens of thousands of papers providing such evidence.
“Hardcore evolutionists often are unaware of how thoroughly the fossil record undermines concepts of evolution, rather than supports them.”
Of course that is further nonsense, but I’m sure you are ready and willing to back up that claim with more strawmen arguments and misunderstandings of what evolution predicts should be seen in the fossil record. Not to mention the fact that the fossil record is far from the strongest evidence in favor of evolution.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:46 am
Debunking? Why can’t you debunk me, then, Scott?
Show me the relationship, on a biological level, between energy input from the sun and the generation and survival of living mico-organisms at random, from raw inanimate matter.
To use your illustration, maintenance of a car doesn’t occur just by leaving it in the sun. I know because I’m a technologist. System maintenance requires understanding, training, intelligence, and effort. So who or what provided the understanding, training, intelligence, and effort to the project of developing life from primordial goo? Or are you saying that by hooking the car up to solar panels from the sun will prevent its decay? Will an uneducated child, even, be able to prevent the car’s entropy? The child is a lot more sophisticated and capable than say, a dog. Let alone random chance!
Logic, reason, common sense, and cause and effect.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 am
Kami
An impossibility is any event with a probability equal to zero. Any probability greater than 0 is a possibility. Because we are here having this discussion, I would say that an event as unlikely as 1 in 10-40000 must have occured.
Just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen (obviously in this case). And probability theory tells us that it will, eventually.
If you give me a deck of cards and ask me randomly select a card, any given card has a probability of 1 in 52 of being selected. Just because I pull out a 2 of clubs, it doesn’t mean anything special… it just happened. In fact, if you asked me to pull out the jack of diamonds, odds are not very good that I would, but I could.
On a small scale, it should not take very many trials for me to eventually draw the jack of diamonds, but, assuming we are reshuffling the deck, it is really just as plausible that I will never draw a jack of diamonds, as it is plausible that I will draw the jack of diamonds on the first try. Hell, another possibility is that I will always draw the jack of diamonds.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 am
Gothnet:
“The entropy argument is old and was busted long ago.”
In fact, Answers in Genesis has it on their list of arguments so ridiculous that even other creationists shouldn’t use them. (Instead, they prefer an equally bogus but more erudite-sounding argument about “information increase” being impossible.) Something like the conception and birth of a baby increases the entropy of the universe
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 am
Kami-Mp
thankyou for saving me the time of writing out responses. every time i read something i took issue with i just scrolled further down to read your response.
too many scientists and science-types have decided they HAVE the answers and KNOW they are right.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 am
Kami-MP:
“Show me the relationship, on a biological level, between energy input from the sun and the generation and survival of living mico-organisms at random, from raw inanimate matter.”
It’s just chemistry, you know. Endothermic and exothermic reactions. All life that exists is nothing more than chemical reactions, and “raw inanimate matter” reacts chemically too. Do you think chemistry is impossible?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:54 am
JohnC:
“too many scientists and science-types have decided they HAVE the answers and KNOW they are right.”
Do you say the same thing about those snotty arrogant scientists who have decided that they KNOW that apples fall when you drop them, and even have the presumption to claim that they know a law that governs that fall? Do you, in fact, know anything about the evidence that supports evolution? Why do you single that theory out, and not, say, gravity?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:59 am
Kami
I’m pretty sure we call evolution a theory, or more properly, “The Theory of Evolution”, because we don’t know that it is right. Otherwise we would call it a “Law”, like the second law of thermodynamics, for example.
Scientists don’t have answers, they have questions. Engineers have answers… so do bible-thumpers.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:01 am
Anti:
The basic assumption that all these processes could even have begun to occur is total pie in the sky. Show me an example, even in a laboratory environment, of any self-replicating molecular structure that develops without human intervention into a more complex structure.
Do you understand the concept of what an amino chain is? It is a molecular structure that shows tremendous organization on the molecular level, without such life as we know it could not exist. Complexity such as this cannot exist without cause and effect. We have no scientific evidence whatsoever to suggest that it can. Ergo my problem with the arrogant supposition that it actually did.
Hoyle’s example of a rubik’s cube works for laymen: imagine a rubik’s cube with thousands of sides (our chemicals.) Now imagine that cube somehow organizing itself, (on it’s own, wth no-one manipulating it, mind!) into a perfect pattern. How can anyone imagine that this is somehow possible?
We see tremendous climate change in a short period of time on earth. The process you describe would obviously take huge stretches of time to complete. What about the effects of outside influences? What if the planet cooled or got hotter, over the course of the billions of years it is imagined such a process might take? That would undermine it as well.
All I am saying is that it is very far-fetched, to the point of ridiculousness. You can call me ignorant or wrong headed all you like, obviously my asking these questions and poking holes in your “holy theory” have struck a nerve. I know, I’m not blue-blooded! I can’t see the fabric, guys. Sorry, you’re naked.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:02 am
Scott:
“I’m pretty sure we call evolution a theory, or more properly, “The Theory of Evolution”, because we don’t know that it is right. Otherwise we would call it a “Law”, like the second law of thermodynamics, for example.”
That’s not how scientific terminology is really used by scientists. Usually, a “theory” is a broad explanatory framework, and a “law” is a specific component of a theory. Sometimes, a “law” is an empirically determined rule that is awaiting a theoretical framework. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics were determined experimentally before a theory was developed to explain why they are true; that theory now exists, and is called statistical mechanics. But “laws” are theoretical too; you can never prove 100% that a law is correct. In fact, you can’t tell very much about the certainty of something by its terminology; there are theories we are very sure of (such as quantum theory) and laws that we are unsure of.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 am
Chemical processes apply to chemicals, Scott - not complex machines and organisms. Complex machines and organisms require a higher level of support and maintenance. Or would you just drop a baby into a vat of chemicals and expect him to grow to adulthood?
Ambi:
You talk about apples falling from trees. So, then, explain to me if you know it all, how does gravity work, exactly?
:P
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:12 am
“Why should we? Life took hundreds of millions of years to develop using the chemicals present over the entire surface of the Earth. Why do you think this process should be easily possible to replicate within a laboratory within a few decades?”
How can chemicals from all over earth be involved in a process which in application develops a life form that can only be discerned with the aid of a microscope?
Your supposition that an event that is obviously highly unlikely in terms of statistical mechanics, somehow occurred multiple times and all over an earth which would supposedly at that time have an atmosphere and other conditions completely inhospitable to life, seems to me to be quite illogical.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:14 am
Kami-MP:
“The basic assumption that all these processes could even have begun to occur is total pie in the sky.”
It’s not an assumption; there is enormous empirical evidence that these processes did in fact take place.
“Show me an example, even in a laboratory environment, of any self-replicating molecular structure that develops without human intervention into a more complex structure.”
Self-replicating molecules alter their structure all the time through mutation. Certainly these new structures lead to different functions and behaviors for the organisms which rely upon them.
If you are asking whether we will ever see a lone self-replicating molecule develop into a cell in a laboratory, no, we won’t. Evolution *predicts* that we won’t. And the fact that we won’t see it says nothing against evolution or the evidence which supports that theory.
Do you understand the concept of what an amino chain is? It is a molecular structure that shows tremendous organization on the molecular level,
It’s a bunch of small molecules which have stuck together into a larger molecule. Amino acids can and do form on their own, and stick to each other on their own as well.
“Complexity such as this cannot exist without cause and effect. We have no scientific evidence whatsoever to suggest that it can.”
“Cause and effect” is a red herring. Of course chemical reactions have causes and effects, but that says nothing about whether life on Earth developed on its own or via intelligent intervention.
“Hoyle’s example of a rubik’s cube works for laymen: imagine a rubik’s cube with thousands of sides (our chemicals.) Now imagine that cube somehow organizing itself, (on it’s own, wth no-one manipulating it, mind!) into a perfect pattern. How can anyone imagine that this is somehow possible?”
A carefully chosen poor analogy works wonders, does it not? Rubik’s Cubes need human intervention to manipulate, but chemicals do not require outside intervention to interact with each other. Furthermore, no self-organizing or selection principles are at work on a Rubik’s Cube, unlike biochemistry.
“We see tremendous climate change in a short period of time on earth. The process you describe would obviously take huge stretches of time to complete.”
Billions of years.
“What about the effects of outside influences? What if the planet cooled or got hotter, over the course of the billions of years it is imagined such a process might take?”
The planet *did* cool and get hotter. Life adapts. The life that can’t stand heat will die off when it gets hotter; the life that can survives. Natural selection. Only a global catastrophe so extreme that it wipes out all life on Earth can stop the process. Life on Earth will certainly survive global warming, or even an asteroid impact. *Humans* may not, but bacteria undoubtedly would, somewhere.
“All I am saying is that it is very far-fetched, to the point of ridiculousness. You can call me ignorant or wrong headed all you like,”
Fine. You’re ignorant. You’ve demonstrated that quite clearly with your ridiculous “examples” of how evolution works, which have nothing to do with how evolution actually works. But you still plug ahead making the same disproven arguments.
“obviously my asking these questions and poking holes in your “holy theory” have struck a nerve.”
You give yourself too much credit. You haven’t poked any holes in any theory, let alone “struck a nerve”. And for your information, evolution is not my “holy theory”. It would be quite interesting if it were proven wrong; that’s when we learn the most about science. There’s no way for a scientist to become more famous than by disproving a major theory. However, sadly for your case, all of the existing evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, and only someone profoundly ignorant of that evidence is honestly capable of denying that fact.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:14 am
Kami
Imagine all the matter and energy of the entire universe compressed into a tiny little space, of practically zero size…
Oh hell, just go read “A Brief History of Time” if you’re looking for cause and effect and all that crap about why planets exist and orbit around stars, etc.
That’s one theory…
Or, imagine that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…
That’s another theory according to some…
The evolutionary theory of is a scientific theory that makes some assumptions that so far can neither be proven nor disproven (all theories do this, otherwise they would be laws) and combines those assumptions with some facts that can be proven, and uses that information to define a model that helps us understand how life develops and changes (effects) as its surrounding environment changes (causes).
This theory has been extended by some to help answer, or model, the question, “How did we get here?” You know, the whole primordial soup, arrangement of molecules theory (weaker theory, sure, because it makes more assumptions). The model suggests that those molecules became more organized, eventually developed into cellular organisms, and as the planet changed over millions of years, those organisms specialized, diversified, and became more complex according to sound theories based on the work of very observant non-scientists, such as Charles Darwin (a student of medicine and theology, eventually a naturalist) and Gregor Mendel (a monk).
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:15 am
Give it up Kami.
Every argument you’re making boils down to “I don’t understand this so god must have done it”.
Back on topic for a second - kissing is great, who cares why we do it?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 am
Kami-MP:
“You talk about apples falling from trees. So, then, explain to me if you know it all, how does gravity work, exactly?”
I never said I “knew it all”. You’re the one being arrogant here, not me.
As for “how does gravity work”, what kind of answer are you asking for? Science is capable of giving a quite detailed description of gravity, including mathematical laws governing its behavior. Science is not capable of saying why the universe obeys those laws to begin with, if that’s what you’re getting at. However, that has nothing at all to do with the *validity* of our theories of gravitation, evolution, etc. Their validity is determined by the extent to which their predictions agree with our observations.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:21 am
Kami-MP:
“How can chemicals from all over earth be involved in a process which in application develops a life form that can only be discerned with the aid of a microscope?”
Chemical reactions took places all over the Earth. In some places on the Earth, those reactions over millions of years eventually resulted in self-replicating molecules, which then spread to the rest of the Earth.
“Your supposition that an event that is obviously highly unlikely in terms of statistical mechanics,”
Statistical mechanics says no such thing. You don’t appear to even know what statistical mechanics is; certainly your probability arguments were not based on it.
“somehow occurred multiple times and all over an earth which would supposedly at that time have an atmosphere and other conditions completely inhospitable to life,”
The conditions were inhospitable to most modern life, but not to early life. In fact, as I mentioned, the conditions then were *more* hospitable to early life than modern conditions would be. And modern anaerobic bacteria would have gotten by quite fine back then.
“seems to me to be quite illogical.”
“Illogical”. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Otherwise, you would provide a logical argument.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:24 am
Ambit
Thanks for the clarification… but I do want to illustrate that technically, we don’t really know much of anything. We just have models that work well according to what we are able to observe, and that help us make predictions. If you want an answer, ask an engineer, a mathematician, or God.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 am
moreover, as you stated, there are many theories that we are pretty sure are true, and some will treat their pet theories as true. I guess you could call that scientific faith :)
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:29 am
More emperor’s new clothes superior attitude, Ambi. Your statement of generalities, and no specific examples of facts, about sums up the scientific community’s general take on evolution: baffle them with BS, act superior, and you’ll sound like you know what you’re talking about.
I am not ignorant. I have read a lot of books on this subject and many others, and I have a wealth of knowledge on a variety of subjects. Nothing from the evolution-supporters has ever made me think that somehow life spontaneously grew from nothing. Chemical reactions notwithstanding, it is scientists like Hoyle who have made calculations, based on knowledge of the complexity of amino chains and how chemicals interact with one another, who have made statements as to the extreme unlikelihood of that process leading to life.
Evolutionary development I have not even gotten into so far. I have a Swiss Army knife. It is very adaptable. Is that evidence of greater or poorer design?
I don’t have any agenda, but I will exercise my right to debate. As more and more is learned about the complexity of life on this planet, more and more scientists (like Behe, for instance) will be forced to drop the idea of random spontaneous generation over time and have to accept that a higher power ordered this plane of existence so that life could be developed here.
If you see fish in a fishbowl, you assume someone bought the fishbowl, set up the heater and water filter, put the water and other stuff in, bought the fish and put them there. That’s simple logic. How could you possibly imagine that the bowl happened because of an explosion, the water and filtering system all happened through simple chmical reactions over time, and the fish grew there from chemical reactions too?
Give me an example of a fossil article which supports evolution. I’ll show you a scientist with an agenda holding up an old and very messed up animal bone. That proves NOTHING. Just that an animal once lived and died, and left behind fossilized remains.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:29 am
Scott:
I understand your point, but I wouldn’t say that “we don’t really know much of anything”. I think there is kind of a postmodern backlash against science in which the fact that science can’t speak with certainty is conflated with science being unreliable. As you say, we have models which work well, and I would like to emphasize that on the basis of these models, we *do* know a lot about how the world works, even though most of our models will ultimately be supplanted by new (better) ones. In particular, our theory of evolution is far from complete — witness the debates over gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, for instance — but the fact that evolution occurred is not in doubt. The details of *how* it occurred are still being hashed out, but even there we still know a great deal.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 am
I wasn’t referring to classical statistical mechanics, but was using a play on words, there, Ambi… Obviously.
Statistically, the mechanics of molecular activity in the admittedly highly unlikely, supposed early environment of earth, ergo the chances of life deriving from the process that you describe, is remote. Very remote. Or do you claim to have better information than Hoyle, Denten, Quastler, and Dawkins, just to name a few?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 am
That evolution did occur is a matter of debate, Ambi, particularly by those who are more in the know than we are.
Adaptation certainly does occur, but saying that because we observe minor adaptation back and forth, the indication is that a bird can evolve from a fish, is a huge leap in logic.
Let’s talk finches. Are you aware that recently due to climate change finches in the Galapagos have been observed cross-breeding and adapting, over a very short period of time, from one type of beak to another? Apparently this is a normal occurrence, it is built into their DNA to have this ability, and does not actually constitute the development of new species at all.
Like I said - adaptability is a mark of better design, not NO design.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:44 am
Kami-MP:
“Your statement of generalities, and no specific examples of facts,”
You’re the one who refuses to give specific examples, so how can I argue against them? You just wave your hands and say “this is impossible”, and I retort by saying that none of the laws of physics or chemistry actually predict that any of these things are unlikely.
“I am not ignorant. I have read a lot of books on this subject and many others, and I have a wealth of knowledge on a variety of subjects.”
You are extremely ignorant. You have made ridiculous statements about single-celled organisms “spontaneously popping out of nowhere” when anyone who knew a thing about biology would know that has nothing to do with how single-celled organisms came about. You make arguments about the probability of life forming when anyone who knew a thing about chemistry would know that you don’t produce an amino acid chain by having a single set of molecules lining up in a particular final order that you want to produce. You refuse to admit that your arguments have nothing to do with reality, and talk about how well read you are. It’s absurd.
“Chemical reactions notwithstanding, it is scientists like Hoyle who have made calculations, based on knowledge of the complexity of amino chains and how chemicals interact with one another,”
Hoyle’s calculations are worse than ridiculous. You can find debunkings of them all over the Internet. See, for instance, http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....prob.html. Not to mention Kauffman’s work, which is far more modern than Hoyle’s, and Kauffman is an actual biologist, unlike Hoyle who was a physicist.
“Evolutionary development I have not even gotten into so far.”
And for good reason. It’s much easier to debunk stupid creationist arguments against evolutionary development than it is stupid creationist arguments against early-Earth abiogenesis, since far more is known about the former.
“I have a Swiss Army knife. It is very adaptable. Is that evidence of greater or poorer design?”
Non sequitur.
“As more and more is learned about the complexity of life on this planet, more and more scientists (like Behe, for instance) will be forced to drop the idea of random spontaneous generation over time”
Behe’s arguments are just as absurd as yours. Every time he comes up with some dumb claim about how some system or other is “irreducibly complex”, someone else shows up and disproves it. In fact, it is well established through both experiment and theory that “irreducibly complex” systems (according to Behe’s definition) can arise through genetic processes.
“If you see fish in a fishbowl, you assume someone bought the fishbowl, set up the heater and water filter, put the water and other stuff in, bought the fish and put them there.”
Paley’s watchmaker argument is even stupider than your existing arguments.
“How could you possibly imagine that the bowl happened because of an explosion, the water and filtering system all happened through simple chmical reactions over time, and the fish grew there from chemical reactions too?”
What is so hard about imaging that? It is well understood how an “explosion” (your inaccurately phrased euphemism for the Big Bang, no doubt) produced stars, planets, etc.; how geological processes formed silica grains, and so on. Forming those silica grains into a bowl had to wait for people to come around and develop glassblowing.
Which part of the process do you object to? 1. That the primordial Earth was filled with a soup of chemicals? 2. That those chemicals can react with each other to form more complex chemicals? 3. That complex chemicals can include self-replicating chemicals?
“Give me an example of a fossil article which supports evolution.”
All of them support evolution. Why don’t you pick one?
“I’ll show you a scientist with an agenda holding up an old and very messed up animal bone.”
So you deny that all life on Earth is related to each other, despite all physiological, fossil, and genetic evidence to the contrary?
“That proves NOTHING. Just that an animal once lived and died, and left behind fossilized remains.”
The point is that on the basis of the fossil evidence, those animals were all related to one another.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:44 am
And no one has debated my statement that complex organization cannot be derived at random from basic chemical reactions in a system that tends to be entropic with regard to complex structures, such as on earth…
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 am
I never debated the concept that life is related. When developing software, you often use a template. That template is very different from the end result of your work. But in a basic way, it is the framework for perhaps your entire series of creations. Similarly, DNA templates, I believe, were used to create the various organisms on earth. That they are adaptable is a matter of planned functionality for the purpose of survival. That they are related is a matter of fact as well. Brothers and sisters are related, are they not? Why? Because they all came from the same parent. Can a random process produce functional software? Nope.
Octob