Kissing was developed 'to spread germs'

[snopes]

It isn't the most romantic theory, but scientists believe kissing was developed to spread germs which build up immunity to illness.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ead-germs.html

[DesertRat]

Bullshit. While this may be an extremely beneficial unintended consequence of kissing, I have the strongest possible doubts that kissing was deliberately developed to accomplish this, being that people have been kissing long before people even understood what bacteria was.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by DesertRat

Bullshit. While this may be an extremely beneficial unintended consequence of kissing, I have the strongest possible doubts that kissing was deliberately developed to accomplish this, being that people have been kissing long before people even understood what bacteria was.

I always enjoy your posts so I hate to disagree with you twice in the space of an hour. But I think you're off base here.

Hamster sex happens so that hamsters can make more hamsters. I doubt that hamsters are aware of this, but that has nothing to do with the way hamster sex evolved. The hamsters don't have to know what's going on.

In the same way, humans don't have to understand what's going on when they kiss. If the theory in the article is correct (and it might not be of course) then humans who liked kissing reproduced more than humans who didn't. And that happened because the females developed an immunity to certain germs because of their kissing. It has nothing to do with human intentions, anymore than hamster sex has to do with hamster intentions.

[llewtrah]

Really? I thought kissing originated as mother passing chewed food to a child. Kissing in adults would just be a retained and comforting reminder of this maternal intimacy.

[Horse Chestnut]

Originally Posted by llewtrah

Really? I thought kissing originated as mother passing chewed food to a child. Kissing in adults would just be a retained and comforting reminder of this maternal intimacy.

You beat me to it, Llewtrah. I had always assumed that kissing originated from mothers feeding their children, though I can imagine that some sort of spit innoculation occurred at the same time. Then perhaps adults later used the act of offering food from their lips as a way to bond with a potential mate. After awhile folks just eliminated the gastronomical middle man and went straight for the lip lock.

[PatYoung]

I thought I invented kissing.

But my dad said that was every generation's conceit.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Steve

Hamster sex happens so that hamsters can make more hamsters. I doubt that hamsters are aware of this, but that has nothing to do with the way hamster sex evolved. The hamsters don't have to know what's going on.

That quote implies intentionality that just is not there. We didn't evolve "to" anything, there was no planned direction. Hamsters that want sex are just more likely to survive, and i think that makes the reason the hamsters do it very important. Just like the reasons we think we are doing things are important. Would you say any mother cuddling with or protecting her child was just acting out of instinct to socialize her child and carry on her genes? Or would you, like everyone, say she does it out of love? Subjective reasons are important, because focusing only on the outcome implies that the outcome was aimed at, rather than just an outgrowth of a subjective experience.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by geminilee

That quote implies intentionality that just is not there. We didn't evolve "to" anything, there was no planned direction. Hamsters that want sex are just more likely to survive, and i think that makes the reason the hamsters do it very important. Just like the reasons we think we are doing things are important. Would you say any mother cuddling with or protecting her child was just acting out of instinct to socialize her child and carry on her genes? Or would you, like everyone, say she does it out of love? Subjective reasons are important, because focusing only on the outcome implies that the outcome was aimed at, rather than just an outgrowth of a subjective experience.

I'm not sure how I implied intentionality, since really I was doing my best to deny it. I hope that doesn't come across as nitpicking. I'm honestly not sure where we're disagreeing.

[geminilee]

The phrasing "X evolved so that Y" implies intentionality, as if Y was aimed for in some way, and X was just created as a means to get there.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by geminilee

The phrasing "X evolved so that Y" implies intentionality, as if Y was aimed for in some way, and X was just created as a means to get there.

I never used that phrasing. Granted this is potentially the most boring argument ever, but since I have no disagreements with you so far I have to again ask what you mean. Is it the sentence "Hamster sex happens so that hamsters can make more hamsters"? I'm standing by that one, dammit. Hell, you wrote "Hamsters that want sex are just more likely to survive" and you meant "reproduce", but you don't see me nitpicking. Well, until now.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Steve

I never used that phrasing. Granted this is potentially the most boring argument ever, but since I have no disagreements with you so far I have to again ask what you mean. Is it the sentence "Hamster sex happens so that hamsters can make more hamsters"? I'm standing by that one, dammit. Hell, you wrote "Hamsters that want sex are just more likely to survive" and you meant "reproduce", but you don't see me nitpicking. Well, until now.

My "nitpick" is not your wording, it is the basic thrust; that only the outcome is important, because the action is just a way to produce that outcome. I think that is backwards; the specific process is important, because the behavior and the consequence is simply an outgrowth of that. I think that, to use the example of the OP, that human reasons for kissing do matter whether we get a benefit from it or not. Any benefit we get from it beyond our concious reasons if secondary.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by geminilee

My "nitpick" is not your wording, it is the basic thrust; that only the outcome is important, because the action is just a way to produce that outcome. I think that is backwards; the specific process is important, because the behavior and the consequence is simply an outgrowth of that. I think that, to use the example of the OP, that human reasons for kissing do matter whether we get a benefit from it or not. Any benefit we get from it beyond our concious reasons if secondary.

Yeah, I agree with all of this. Really, everything you've said in this thread is correct. Which honestly makes me puzzled why you disagree with me. I never said that only the outcome is important. The OP discussed how the outcome came about, the post I was resposnding to discussed how the outcome came about, and I discussed how the outcome may or may not have come about. But I certainly never said that only the outcome is important. Sure, it's important why we kiss. But do you think that since we were ignorant of germs a few hundred years ago, we couldn't have evolved to kiss because of germs?

[DesertRat]

Actually, Steve, we're in total agreement. The tone I got from the article was that humans deliberately developed kissing in order to achieve that specific effect, which is obviously ludicrous. Whether or not the writers intended that is debatable, but they may want to reconsider their word choice when writing...

[Jahungo]

The article's use of the phrase "scientists say" is, I think, deliberately misleading, intended to lend weight to the argument as though there is some scientific consensus or at least a large group of scientists pushing this idea. Instead it seems like it is just one research group that has come up with this hypothesis - and I call it that because (based on the article) all they have come up with is a plausible theory without data to back it up. (Of course, direct evidence for this sort of thing is difficult to come across, but at the very least they would need mathematical models that show that such an effect would be significant enough to lead to widespread kissing, among other data).

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by PatYoung

I thought I invented kissing.

But my dad said that was every generation's conceit.

From the OP:

Kissing the same person for about six months provides the best protection, he added.

Mrs Ganz, get ready to lock braces! Guinness book, here I come. Woo hoo. (I doubt we'll last more than ten minutes but you have to aim high.)

[llewtrah]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

The article's use of the phrase "scientists say" is, I think, deliberately misleading,

What do you expect from the Telegraph, accuracy?