Why do humans kiss?
-- asks Roberto Morabito from Brooklyn, NY.
Kristina Fiore • October 2, 2006
Scientists currently have no explanation for this particular KISS. (CREDIT: Wok)
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.
Filed To
Share
About the Author
Kristina Fiore
By day, a mild-mannered reporter(former Newsday intern, current Daily Record part-timer); Alter-ego: lover of non-fiction narrative. “If he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, he will, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.” — Life of Pi
353 Comments
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.
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?
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.
@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
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.
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.”
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.
Has anyone asked the French? Kiss?
Where is the science in the shiat article? This artcile reads and feels like an high school newspaper expose! Well in retards!
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.
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.”
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.
@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.
@ 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.
@ 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.
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!
@ Kami-MP
Give one blind man a rubics cube, and wait forever…. he’ll solve it
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
“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?
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?
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
Oops… that link didn’t work
try this
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
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.