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
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.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.
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…
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.
If evolution is true, why are we closer, from a genetic standpoint, to field mice than to, say, chimps? “Questions evolutionists hate.”
“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.”
What the hell is that sentence supposed to mean? Molecular activity certainly occurred on the early Earth. It would have to be frozen to absolute zero for molecular activity *not* to occur.
“Very remote. Or do you claim to have better information than Hoyle, Denten, Quastler, and Dawkins, just to name a few?”
Better than Hoyle, certainly. His calculations, as I have mentioned, utterly neglect the parallel reactions of life all over the planet, selection processes, the self-organization of autocatalyzing chemical networks, and all kinds of other concepts. It also ignores the other point I made before, which is that there are *many* ways of producing polypeptides; when you change the calculation from “producing this specific biomolecule” to “producing a biomolecule”, it is an entirely different matter.
I suspect Denten and Quastler have the same problems, since all creationist probability calculations I’ve seen make the same naive assumptions, but I haven’t seen their calculations.
As for Dawkins, he most certainly does not agree with you; he is probably the world’s most vocal critic of your position. Have you really read Dawkins?
“That evolution did occur is a matter of debate, Ambi, particularly by those who are more in the know than we are.”
No, it’s not. Creationists are very vocal, but among biologists, there is no debate.
“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.”
All of the evidence is that birds and fish share a common ancestors, based on their morphological and genetic similarities. Read about the nested hierarchy of descent.
“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?”
So what?
“Apparently this is a normal occurrence, it is built into their DNA to have this ability,”
Yes, it’s called “evolution”. In fact, it’s the definition of the word.
“and does not actually constitute the development of new species at all.”
That has nothing to do with the fact that different species of Galapagos finches are related to each other, or the fact that evolution can lead to speciation.
I look at the creation of life on earth as a process somewhat similar to software development. A framework, or operating system, is developed first. (Comparable to the universe, with its matter and chemical materials, energy sources, etc.) Then, once an environment has been established, design can be accomplished. DNA is like software, and to me it represents masterful conceptual design, the ability to generate a distinctive outcome from a carefully selected combination of molecules. Those instructions, set within a living cell which maintains the life and order of the system, form the foundation and basic building blocks of life.
You see language like this even in evolutionist texts. But really, what are they saying? Likening these systems to things that WE BUILD. Houses don’t come about without design and effort. I feel that the earth is a lot more complex than any human dwelling. It is arrogant to postulate that it somehow happened on it’s own.
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” [R. Dawkins, “The Necessity of Darwinism”. New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.]
Evolution, or design? Darwin’s original suppposition was that these variances, (adaptations) were the mechanics of evolution. But these modern findings show that these birds adapt all the time as a matter of course, and still remain what they have always been: birds.
No debate among biologists? Come on, who are you trying to kid? I suppose you’ll now tell us that WW2 was just a minor spat?
Ambi,
Thats my point exactly… it is the job of science to evaluate and refine those models. It is true that there is much that we do know, and that fact that we are able to make accurate predicitions based on our models suggests that those models are fairly correct. When something happens that doesn’t fit the model, we go back and try and find out why, and build a better model. I suppose I am prone to overstate my point.
Kami,
Is it really so hard to imagine that there is a supreme being who was so smart that all He (take no offense from the gender reference please) had to do was set off a chain reaction of events that occurred within a framework of rules (physics to us mortals) beginning with an immense explosion of a tiny random ball of matter and energy that eventually led to the creation of primitive atoms (i.e. Hydrogen) that collected into trillions huge spherical masses called stars that fused the hydrogen into heavier atoms like helium, carbon, and iron and eject those particles, which in turn clustered into other large spheres called planets, which orbited those trillions of stars, and on a certain planet certain combinations of molecules associated into primitive organic compounds and eventually those organic compounds where captured in a phospholipid membrane resulting in a primitive cellular organism that was capable of reproducing itself, but existed in a hostile, changing, environment and was thus, via evolution, forced to adapt and diversify in order to continue its existence, eventually resulting in a vast variety of diverse organisms, over billions of years, knowing this whole time that “we” would eventually come to be?
I suppose not, but our existence is not evidence of a supreme being, one can either choose to believe that there is a God, or that there is not a God, it has nothing to do with science.
I am going to go get lunch with my girlfriend… there is a probability greater than 0 that I will kiss, and I have faith that it will happen.
Show me hard evidence of natural adaptation leading to speciation. You can’t. It’s all just imagination. As much as drawing an entire hairy beast based on a fossil finding of a little piece of a jaw.
Kami-MP:
“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…”
What’s there to debate? You have no argument, just the naked assertion. Certainly all life now on Earth is based on basic chemical reactions, despite “entropy”. Entropy doesn’t forbid the formation of complex structures.
“I never debated the concept that life is related.”
By related, I mean the way you are related to your parents, not the way two individually manufactured telephones are related to each other: a common ancestor in the Earth’s distant past reproduced to produce all of the organisms now alive.
“Similarly, DNA templates, I believe, were used to create the various organisms on earth.”
So you agree that all the species on Earth were descended through birth (or other reproductive processes) from a common ancestor, inheriting its DNA with modifications?
“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.”
Yeah, that’s the point of evolution.
“Can a random process produce functional software? Nope.”
Proof by assertion and inadequate analogy is not compelling. Especially when it’s manifestly false. Genetic algorithms operating by random evolutionary processes *have* produced functional software.
“If evolution is true, why are we closer, from a genetic standpoint, to field mice than to, say, chimps?”
That’s easy: we aren’t. We are genetically more similar to chimps than to any other species.
All the best on the kissing, Scott. I don’t disagree with you – I simply believe that it was created specifically, according to kinds, not via a process that started from goo and derived therefrom. If you believe an intelligent designer was involved, why couldn’t that being have specifically created these creatures, and finally humans, from basic elements? When we build a car we don’t start with a bicycle and adapt it into a car, do we? Wouldn’t make sense.
Terraforming the planet would have started with the creation of micro-organisms that could survive in the environment. After that more complex, presumably photosynthetic organisms could be added, then perhaps fish and insects, then grass, then terra forming larger creatures like dinosaurs, and finally the end stage, mammals on more complex and beautiful plants and animals. Each with the ability to adapt in order to survive, and in incredible diversity, “from the shop” if you will.
i’ve been reading (most of) the posts after finding this article on digg, and i’d like to submit another point of view regarding the philosophies involved, and the end product of those fruits.
i’m not a philosopher by definition, but have been recently considering what separates a healthy world view from an unhealthy world view, as determined by the end product, or behavior of the people group who adhere to that world view. the filters in our mind that process information that are established by our beliefs will always influence our thoughts, which will influence behavior. influence may not be a strong enough word in this context.
how has the belief or world view of evolution influenced the way we live our lives? that’s a big question, and the implications are massive. the beliefs of darwin led to german fascism. hitler was openly known to be a strong supporter of darwin’s beliefs. millions of people were killed, families were destroyed, and a continent scarred from the idea that one race was more evolved, or superior to the other. how can one race claim to be equal to the other, if it’s true that one race of people is underdeveloped, which evolution blatantly suggests?
i’m interested to hear what everyone thinks about this perspective.
Who cares why we do it. Its fun. People trying to figure out why we kiss are the people who have never kissed anything but their test tube. Leave it alone and let the good times roll
I’m sure I read that mice and humans share 99% of the same genes, and are closer in terms of DNA than humans and chimps. Ambi, just because you ascribe to the “I’m a monkey” concept doesn’t mean that all the evidence necessarily supports it.
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.”
Perhaps you are taking this out of context… it is hard to believe that something improbably *can* happen, so we chalk it up to intelligent design. He is saying that it is the “superficial” conclusion, i.e. the naive conclusion.
Again, just because something is improbable doesn’t mean it won’t happen… we are here, aren’t we? Even if one assumes that a series of improbable random events were required to allow for our existence, they must of occurred, and then the not-so-random process of evolution led to “life as we know it”. We could be purple and have four eyes and be capable of climbing walls… it would have just been a different set of random events, a different environment for evolution.
“DNA is like software, and to me it represents masterful conceptual design, the ability to generate a distinctive outcome from a carefully selected combination of molecules. Those instructions, set within a living cell which maintains the life and order of the system, form the foundation and basic building blocks of life.”
So you’re not objecting to evolution at all, but to abiogenesis (the formation of DNA from chemical precursors)? You agree that there was an original cell, which produced more cells, which differentiated through mutation, and through further reproduction led to all species on Earth?
Where exactly do you think the Hand of God let go and biochemistry let go? Do you think that cells can reproduce on their own? Can new species form on their own, or were all of them created? From what? God altering existing organisms, or just poofing new ones into existence?
“Houses don’t come about without design and effort. I feel that the earth is a lot more complex than any human dwelling.”
Yes, but houses also don’t self-reproduce subject to the introduction of diversity via mutation and recombination of existing plans, under selection pressure for more complex and adaptive forms. If they could, we’d probably have some really complex living cities.
“It is arrogant to postulate that it somehow happened on it’s own.”
No, it’s arrogant to postulate a designer in one’s own image when there is no evidence that anything other than natural processes have been at work.
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.”
[R. Dawkins, “The Necessity of Darwinism”. New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.]”
It’s kind of pathetic to quote someone out of context in order to support your point.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part7.html
“Darwin’s original suppposition was that these variances, (adaptations) were the mechanics of evolution. But these modern findings show that these birds adapt all the time as a matter of course, and still remain what they have always been: birds.”
Well duh. A bird isn’t going to evolve into a fish or something before your eyes. Wait a few tens of million years and you’ll see some radically new body structures. But within a human lifetime a population of birds can evolve to contain a slightly different species of bird that looks almost the same as the original.
“No debate among biologists? Come on, who are you trying to kid?”
Are you insane? Pick up any respected biology journal and find JUST ONE article contesting whether evolution occurred. There is certainly debate on HOW evolution happened, but not WHETHER it happened.
“Show me hard evidence of natural adaptation leading to speciation.”
There are a number of examples witnessed both in the lab and in the field. However, creationists reject all such examples because they are “too similar” to the original species. However, according to the biological definition of species, they are different species.
But we don’t have to witness it happening to have hard evidence of it. The structural and genetic similarities between species are evidence enough.
You make a good point, Michael. The sociological effects of the evolution theory have definitely not had a positive effect on humanity. The idea tends to divide us as a species, and causes all sorts of undesirable effects on the basic group conscience of human society.
If I’m just a more advanced ape, why not just do what apes do? Live my life like a hedonist, enjoy it while you can baby cause soon it’s over, and there’s no point to anything. That’s a life view that really sucks from my perspective, and leads to all sorts of misery, not least of which the Columbine style killings we are seeing across America right now – people with no conscience and no fellow feeling.
michael
So the validity and factual basis of a scientific theory should be subject to what evil people do with it?
And the whole concept of “race” is somehwat flawed.
Kami
Once again your idea, that a creator came along and did things is waves, does not fit the evidence of either genetics or the fossil record. You’re making up more and more elaborate ways to fit a designer or creator into known evidence and failing. It is not a scientific viewpoint, to take evidence and discard what disagrees with your preconceived notions. So far evidence has only reinforced and refined what we know about evolution, occasionally pointing out where our theories were inadequate. Nothing so far has been found that contradicts the overall theory. You’re playing the “god of the gaps” game in which verything unexplained is god’s work. As the gaps in our knowledge close up your god is forced to a smaller and smaller domain. It doesn’t need to be that way. Consider the book of genesis to be an analogy, consider that god set the rules and set things in motion, but do not presume to deny scientific fact (evolution) and theory (our hypotheses about the mechanisms of evolution) in the name of god.
Kami-MP:
“I simply believe that it was created specifically, according to kinds, not via a process that started from goo and derived therefrom.”
Oh, your a by-kind creationist. So, we didn’t start out with single-celled life, we started with “kinds” of organisms pre-formed. So, what were the original “kinds” that first populated the Earth? Were there cat and dog kinds, for instance, or was there a combined canine-feline kind that later led to the cat and dog species?
“If you believe an intelligent designer was involved, why couldn’t that being have specifically created these creatures, and finally humans, from basic elements?”
You could. A sufficiently powerful designer can do anything. However, you would have to explain why these different creatures which appeared out of nowhere appear to be descended from each other, right up to the same mutations in their non-coding DNA.
“I’m sure I read that mice and humans share 99% of the same genes, and are closer in terms of DNA than humans and chimps.”
You may be sure you read that, but it’s not true: we are much more similar to chimps. It is, however, true that mice and humans are genetically very similar. See here: http://www.genome.gov/15515096 (“To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.”)
“Ambi, just because you ascribe to the “I’m a monkey” concept doesn’t mean that all the evidence necessarily supports it.”
The evidence supports it regardless of what I ascribe to.
michael,
Science, like anything else, can be used improperly, but that doesn’t mean we should avoid it. Nuclear physics led to the atomic bomb, which is a terrible thing, but it has also led us to great advances is medicine, for example. Evolution theory and genetics also have opened doors for advancement in the medical field, and as Ambi mentioned, even in mathematics and computer science.
I think it is in mankind’s nature to search for answers, or even questions. An apple fell on Newton’s head (myth?) and now we have calculus and sent a man to the moon. If we chose not to pursue science, we’d still be living in caves.
Unfortunately, it is also in mankind’s nature to wage wars, and scientific progress has improved are ability here as well.
Reading all of these posts is hilarious and far more interesting then the topic of “Why we Kiss?”
Bacteria swaps? Evolution? Thai orgasms?!?!
It would be more interesting to find out who read this story because it was interesting and because they were bored at work (me), and how many people read it and had to make a post to try and justify why evolution is the reason they have no social life and are jealous of kissing chimps.
Kami-MP:
“If I’m just a more advanced ape, why not just do what apes do?”
If my father was a child abuser, why not be a child abuser myself? For someone who claims to be so logical, you sure to put forth stupid arguments.
“Live my life like a hedonist, enjoy it while you can baby cause soon it’s over, and there’s no point to anything.”
That certainly has nothing to do with evolution. Atheism, perhaps, but it’s still stupid. Atheists certainly see a point in what they do; whether there is an afterlife or not has no bearing on whether you find a point to doing things while alive.
“That’s a life view that really sucks from my perspective, and leads to all sorts of misery, not least of which the Columbine style killings we are seeing across America right now”
Once again, you’re confusing evolution and atheism, and what’s more, you’re also wrong. Atheism doesn’t lead to “no conscience and no fellow feeling” any more than religion does. It just means that you don’t believe God exists; it doesn’t imply anything about your morals or values, other than you don’t get them out of a religious text.
Kami
So atheists are a threat to society? Lovely train of thought there.
Care to explain all the good that religion has done over the years? Crusades, suicide bombing, socially conscious acts like those. Grand.
Well you may say that those people weren’t really believers and only used religion to their own ends. One can say exactly the same about people who used misguided eugenics to justfy the scapegoating and attempted extermination of whole peoples.
Evolution is not a force for anything, it is fact, the theory of evolution is a set of hypotheses about how that occurs.
If anything it’s less divisive than religion, showing how closely everything is interrelated, let alone the miniscule genetic variation amongst humans.
Please keep morals away from fact. Your simplistic assessment of people’s motivations when they don’t “believe” is offensive. When one does not believe in some sort of almight protector or a life of eternal bliss and realises that this life is all we have, many people such as myself think that we should be struggling to make this life as good as possible for everyone. Don’t even get me started on the sector of US fundamentalism that’s sitting there patiently waiting for god to take them away in “The Rapture” and leave all the “sinners” to chaos, pain and hellfire.
Any theory has to be examined in it’s whole, not in part. Evolution teaches that everything happened on it’s own without any outside influence. I think that’s ridiculous. Life and the systems we see around us are too complex to have just occurred without design, power and purpose (cause and effect.) Do animals adapt to their environments? Can humans? Definitely. Did God create the earth in seven literal days? Obviously not. Does adaptation, as we have observed it, prove that one species derived from another? No, I’m sorry, it does not. We don’t know enough about biological and biochemical processes to state that it does, either, despite scientific arrogance to the contrary.
There is as much observable evidence in our environment of a creator as there is for evolution, more in fact. There are a huge number of coincidental circumstances which support life here, far more than I believe could have just spontaneously occurred.
Chemical processes cannot explain beauty, love, music, art, even kissing, man. Life is complex and enjoyable. Why is there just one dominant species on this planet? Why not two or three? Do you ever question what you have been taught, or do you blindly accept it? Look around you at the diversity of this planet. Look at the way life forms are interdependant and interact. Is this the product of cold, unreasoning chance? I’m sorry, that does not make sense.
You accuse me of having an agenda, but that does not invalidate my point that evolutionists definitely do have a secular humanist agenda themselves, and their faith in evolution is just that – faith. My faith is in an intelligent designer. I believe it makes me a better person, at least. In the long run, I believe such belief will be powerfully vindicated.
There is nothing instinctual about humans. When we came down from the trees we gave up instincts. The pheromones however is a good reason, I’ve ran across a girl or two that just drove me wild to when she breathed out her pheromones.
thanks for responding.
my thought on your responses:
this may sound harsh, but it’s logical. i by no means am supporting hitler’s actions, idealogy, or murder, but if logically followed, if evolution is correct, wasn’t he doing the world a favor by removing flawed humans, therefore improving the genepool for generations to come? if there is no ultimate being to be responsible to, why should we not extinguish people who have a family history of having disease, mental disorders, or even alcoholism or obesity? after all, it’s survival of the fittest, right? why not speed up the process and help humankind out? obviously, everyone is screaming out “because it’s wrong”. what makes it wrong? we’ve removed god. we’ve removed accountability. it’s your word against mine. no one is right, truth is abolished, let’s make this world a better place for the future.
THAT is where evolution leads. it’s not a good place. some of you used the term “evil” in previous posts. who defines what is evil? man is evil, so who is another man to call me evil? wouldn’t that be hypocrisy?
i’m interested to hear your thoughts.
“Life and the systems we see around us are too complex to have just occurred without design, power and purpose (cause and effect.)”
Complex does not mean impossible. You are stating an opinion, not a fact. It is okay that you find it difficult to believe, but it is still possible.
Kami
more appeals to ignorance I see.
There is one dominant species because we out-competed everything else. Looking at the sheer numbers of insects on the planet one could question how dominant we really are though.
Where is this evidence for a creator you speak of? Nobody has yet come up with any at all. Perhaps you ought to read about the anthropic principle before you claim that everything is too coincidental for life to have arisen.
And yes, I constantly question what I’ve been taught. You, however, reek of religious dogma.
PLEASE read this page, it really does answer a lot of the questions on complexity that you’ve posed to everyone today. You do not need to argue from ignorance any longer, please.
michael,
I may be cynical, but I am still an optimist… I mean, I believe people mostly to be good, regardless of their beliefs… I just prepare myself for disappointment :)
Anyhow, humans are intelligent, and we are generally brought up to respect others, regardless of where they’re from, how they talk, what they believe, or what they look like (except during highschool… thats where we learn to sh!t on people that aren’t like us). Not everyone in this world is a hitler.
We have a conscience and morals (gifts from God perhaps?). Not everyone is a Hitler.
michael
Hitler doing the world a favour? Dear god no, how do you figure that?
1. Evolution is not a philosophy, humanity does not have to strive to evolve.
2. I don’t think that jewish people (or any other “race”) are inferior humans. Do you?
3. Why should we extinguish people who have hereditary diseases? Who the hell are you to decide what their life is worth?
Your questions have nothing to do with evolution, though do keep trying to tar a theory that explains biological diversity and development with your cod-philosophical brush, it’s entertaining.
“Life and the systems we see around us are too complex to have just occurred without design, power and purpose (cause and effect.)”
Once again, you’ve put forth nothing but an argument from ignorance. “I can’t imagine how it could have happened, so it couldn’t.”
P.S. “Design, power, and purpose” are entirely different from “cause and effect”. Hydrogen and oxygen combining to form water is “cause and effect”, but that doesn’t mean design, power, or purpose is involved.
“Does adaptation, as we have observed it, prove that one species derived from another? No, I’m sorry, it does not. We don’t know enough about biological and biochemical processes to state that it does,”
We don’t have to know anything about biochemical processes to conclude that adaptation leads to speciation; already there was enough evidence in Darwin’s time, before DNA was known. The genetic evidence just makes it even more airtight.
“There is as much observable evidence in our environment of a creator as there is for evolution, more in fact.”
“I can’t imagine how it could have happened naturally” does not constitute evidence of a creator.
“Chemical processes cannot explain beauty, love, music, art, even kissing, man.”
Love, art, etc. are all products of chemical reactions, because life itself is nothing but a giant self-sustaining chemical reaction. Of course, we cannot derive the concept of “love” from the laws of chemistry, but all of our emotions ultimately are governed by them.
“Why is there just one dominant species on this planet? Why not two or three?”
Before us, there probably was no clear “dominant species” on the planet. Then we evolved. Do you think another species of equal intelligence should have evolved at the same time? Wait a hundred million years, we’ll see if something else turns up.
“Look around you at the diversity of this planet. Look at the way life forms are interdependant and interact. Is this the product of cold, unreasoning chance? I’m sorry, that does not make sense.”
All of your arguments are based on nothing but the naked assumption that complex things can’t happen by themselves. You don’t have evidence for any such assumption. You acknowledge that there is complex interdependence among organisms right now. Forget the past, do you think those organisms are obeying something other than natural law *right now*? If so, what is the evidence that *right now* supernatural interventions are taking place to maintain the interactions between organisms? If not, we have demonstrated that natural law can support complex interactions.
“You accuse me of having an agenda, but that does not invalidate my point that evolutionists definitely do have a secular humanist agenda themselves,”
That’s ridiculous. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists of all faiths. You just can’t admit that evolution was arrived at on the basis of evidence, not atheist conspiracy.
“I believe it makes me a better person, at least.”
How does your belief in an intelligent designer make you a better person?
I haven’t even gotten into Penrose. Your arguments have been as passionate as mine, but I could point out as many flaws in your reasoning as you have attempted to point out in mine.
I think Michael’s questions are very thought provoking. Another reason, IMHO, to debate evolution and yearn for another alternative.
gothnet
i’m responding to 2 of your posts. you had mentioned earlier that “the concept of race is somewhat flawed”. i’m interested to hear you unpack that a little bit.
you also suggested that religion leads to wars, which i don’t disagree with. however- i think we need to consider how many wars/deaths/killings/etc. were caused by a LACK of religion. idealogy is idealogy whether it believes in a god or host of gods. Stalin killed more people than all religious wars put together, but no one ever chalks that up to atheism.
as someone posted earlier, there are misguided individuals anywhere you look, in any organization, country, business, or religion. there will always be people who stray from the initial foundational principles of that organization, business, religion, etc. and cause damage.
what i’m talking about is the actions, thoughts, and behavioral patterns that the world view or belief system produces as a whole.
for example- when i was in india, i saw children who had been maimed, disfigured at birth by their parents. it was disgusting. why on earth would anyone do this to their children, you ask? well- that family was a member of the lowest caste possible, the begging caste (sorry, i’m not familiar with the exact term for their caste) and was going to be a beggar for life. their parents actually DID THEM A FAVOR by damaging their bodies, so that they’d be better beggars. this wasn’t a small percentage of kids, either, it was a majority. the caste system is morally and idealogically bankrupt, in the same way i believe that evolution is morally and idealogically bankrupt.
thoughts?
Read the Emperor’s New Mind, guys. It’s a lot of fun. And it will cause you to (gasp!) question your programming.
Kami
So you give up?
You assert that evolution makes people evil somehow, without considering either the arguments for compassionate atheism or that the majority of christians are not ID believers, and you leave us by saying you could point out flaws in our arguments. Well either do it or at least examine your own arguments and look honestly at what you’re doing – denying a small piece of rock-solid evidence based science because of your religious beliefs.
Really, whilst michael’s questions are interesting (but prejudiced), there’s no reason to “yearn for another alternative” other than your own (and michaels) blinkered reasoning. Open your eyes.
Michael again brings up extremely thought provoking ideas. Good points all.
gothnet
you obviously didn’t read the first sentence of my “hitler” post, so i’ll repost it in all caps to make sure you read it. here goes:
I BY NO MEANS AM SUPPORTING HITLER’S ACTIONS, IDEALOGY, OR MURDER, BUT IF LOGICALLY FOLLOWED…
hope that clears up any suggestions that i support hitler in any way, shape, or form. the point that i was trying to make is that if evolution is played out to its endgame, this is what will happen.
KISS RULEZ!!!!!!!!