Tuesday, October 16, 2012

A new evolutionary breakthrough...

"The evolution of kissing":
So how did humans make the leap from mouth-to-mouth feeding to full-blown makeout sessions? That's less clear — but scientists are on the case. Philematology (the science and study of kissing) is becoming an increasingly popular area of study, as researchers strive to sort out the mysteries of love and attraction. Sheril Kirshenbaum, science writer and author of The Science of Kissing, describes one of the more popular hypotheses to be floated in recent years:
A kiss puts two people in very close proximity. Our sense of smell allows us to pick up subconscious clues about the other person's DNA or reproductive status. Biologist Claus Wedekind found that women are most attracted to the scent of men who have a very different genetic code for their immune system in a region of DNA known as the major histocompatibility complex. Pairing off with a male who has a different set of genes for immunity can lead to children that will have a higher level of genetic diversity, making them healthier and more likely to survive.

So Sleeping Beauty woke up when the Handsome Prince kissed her because she smelled his different histocompatibility complex DNA and wanted children with a higher level of genetic diversity who would be more likely to survive. 

Unlike her, evolutionary science never sleeps. 


  1. "Unlike her, evolutionary science never sleeps."

    But, it does hallucinate.

  2. Well, there's not just science and pseudoscience. Science can be excellent science, good science, mediocre science, bad science...

    This I'd put in the mediocre if not bad science category. Similar to the paper published by ID proponents Axe and Gauger last year noting that it's impossible to evolve by natural selection from one modern existing enzyme to another similar modern existing enzyme.

    True, but trivial, similar to the creationist claim that evolution is disproved because cats don't give birth to dogs, even though they're clearly related being both Carnivora.

    I have some doubt about this research, besides doubting that human olfaction can detect HLA differences, even subconsciously. What about the Westermarck effect in which children raised together, even if completely unrelated, don't find each other sexually attractive? Whereas siblings raised apart as children and later meeting as adults (and sharing around 50% of their HLA genes on average) can find each other attractive - assuming that they're unaware of their kinship.

    1. The research is crap, like so much of evolutionary story-telling.

    2. Religion isn't science. Darwinists/atheists need to understand that.

      And I am an idiot.

      I hope, though, a bit less of an idiot than my interlocutors.

    3. I hope, though, a bit less of an idiot than my interlocutors.

      Given your track record evidenced here, that's a forlorn hope.

    4. "I hope, though, a bit less of an idiot than my interlocutors."

      That's not setting a very high standard, is it? ;)